Energy Policy: Ministerial Responsibility

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why energy policy has ceased to be the responsibility of a single Minister.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, energy policy remains the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Since 1992, however, energy efficiency has been the responsibility of the department dealing with environmental affairs. The Government have seen no reason to change this position.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I always understood that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had other things to do. Still, it may not be so. I did not know that she had the spare time.
	Perhaps we can imagine for a moment that the noble Lord is the Minister responsible for our energy supplies and ask him to reflect on whether he would find the soothing syrup of the White Paper a bit unsatisfactory; and whether he would be entirely happy with the idea that we imported no less than 80 per cent of our generally raw material supplies for the generation of electricity—and that through a pipeline, as yet undesigned, unbuilt, unfinanced, right across Europe. Does he agree that the target of a 20 per cent energy supply from wind is also a bit uncertain?
	The noble Lord could go on to lament the fact that the Government have ignored the nuclear alternative and their shocking neglect of research. We are drifting into a very dangerous situation.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not certain that the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, relate in any way to his original Question: whether or not the responsibility for energy efficiency rests within Defra. That would not have made any difference whatever to the policies that we stated in the White Paper.
	The noble Lord very graciously expressed his concerns to me previously. I find it very difficult to imagine myself as energy Minister; I have quite enough problems as it is with science. However, if I were, I do not think that I should agree with any of the noble Lord's points. I think that the energy White Paper set out a very clear strategy. There are of course issues in that document which are extremely difficult and complex. I am very glad that the House of Lords Science and Technology Sub-Committee II is undertaking an inquiry on what practical steps are needed to achieve a move towards renewables sought at the rate proposed in the recent White Paper. These are complicated issues. It would be very interesting to have further insights or evidence on whether our target is achievable of 10 per cent of electricity sales by 2010.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, following on from the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on the need for a single energy department, is it not unsatisfactory that at present the Minister in the DTI—the noble Lord's own ministry—designated with the energy portfolio is only responsible part time for part of energy? He is also responsible for postal services and e-commerce. An important part of energy is the responsibility of another department; namely, Defra. Does not that complex ministerial arrangement suggest that perhaps the Government are beginning to lose interest in energy?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, for some time the Minister responsible for energy has had other responsibilities. That position has not changed with the new energy Minister. As I explained, there are very good reasons why energy efficiency was put under Defra in 1992. There are other considerations that relate to, for example, negotiations on climate change, and so on. Therefore, it is a perfectly sound and workable arrangement.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps I may give a specific example. Is the noble Lord aware that a small all-party group from this House has been seeking help for the coal mine methane industry? We have had to go around the houses in order to ask for support for this fledgling industry. We found ourselves talking to the DTI. On the question of admission to the emissions trading scheme, we were sent to talk to Defra. Both departments said that they wanted to help. Is the noble Lord aware that nothing happened? In desperation I went to the Treasury to ask whether there was a government view that might help this important industry. Again, nothing happened. As a result, the industry is now going abroad, taking its expertise and investment with it.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord will know from his own experience of government that, however one divides these things up, inevitably different departments will have to co-operate and have joined-up government on certain issues. One cannot simply put everything into one department. For example, if one put energy efficiency under the DTI, it simply opens up another interface, which is the interface between energy efficiency and environmental policies. There are interfaces within government. The issue is not continually to move the pieces around, but to make certain that there is joined-up government across the interfaces.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my memory fail me? Was it not the Conservative Party which took the energy industry out of the control of government by privatising the gas and electricity industries—virtually closing down the coal industry—and putting them under a regulator? Under those circumstances, there is little left for a government to do, except to arrange overall energy strategy. I do not know that I agree with that strategy, but, nevertheless, that is what remains for them to do. If the Conservative Party wants complete control over energy supplies, perhaps we had better go back to owning the industries that create and provide energy.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I assume that the question about memory failing was merely a rhetorical one—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Absolutely.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Of course, all that the noble Lord says is true—as is the point I made in my first Answer; namely, that it was a Conservative government in 1992 who took a single energy department and split it in two parts, one going to the DTI and the other going to Defra.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister on the slightly cavalier reply that he gave to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. The DTI website reveals that Mr Stephen Timms is also responsible for sustainable development, e-commerce, communications and information industries, the Radiocommunications Agency, postal services, the Post Office and corporate social responsibility. Why should the House believe that the Government are serious about energy, given that he has that range of responsibilities?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have already answered that question in more general terms. The answer is that we work extremely hard in the DTI and do not have the superfluity of Ministers to assign just one Minister to every subject; we share responsibilities.

Noble Lords: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sorry, but we are over-running our time.

Street Furniture: Control of Advertising

Baroness Greengross: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What regulations apply to the control of advertising on lamp posts, road signs, traffic lights and other street furniture, and how such regulations are enforced.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, outdoor advertisements are controlled under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. Local planning authorities are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the advertisement control system and for enforcing the regulations. Enforcement is entirely at the discretion of the local planning authority.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he agree that the problem is now getting out of hand? One might even say, "Bill Stickers is not innocent". Local authorities are apparently not taking their responsibilities sufficiently seriously. Would the Minister be prepared to consider introducing appropriate measures to ensure that they do?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, as I said, that is entirely a matter for local authorities. They have the legislative power to take action for enforcement. In fact, the power even runs as far as providing that those who are the subject of the advertisement—those whose goods, trade or business is being advertised—can in certain circumstances be held liable for the offence and prosecuted. Again, that is entirely up to the local authority. Coming in from the West this morning, I saw hardly a sticker on a lamp-post or traffic light; but when I was going up to Hackney and Tower Hamlets later, I could not see any paint on the lamp-posts or traffic signals for the stickers.
	I may add, for the avoidance of doubt, that the Government have produced a booklet on the matter, as one would expect. As for legislation, there is a plan to strengthen local authorities' powers to combat fly-posting when a suitable legislative opportunity occurs. As noble Lords know, legislative time is incredibly precious and we must be very careful with our priorities. At present, our priorities are already set and fly-posting is clearly coming after other important issues.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the Minister accept that most Members of the House are probably extremely glad to hear that, at least on this issue and despite having issued the booklet, the Government are leaving something totally to local authorities?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, have the Government commissioned the research that was called for by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents into the distracting effect of signs, especially at road junctions, given that in 2001 alone, there were 3,247 fatalities not on the motorway and that only about 6 per cent of road deaths occur on motorways, where distractions are regulated to be at a minimum?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I regret that I do not have the specific answer to the question about research, but the good practice guide, The Control of Fly-posting, may be a partial response to that. There have been other publications and advice on the matter, such as another booklet, Outdoor Advertisements and Signs: a Guide for Advertisers, and general guidance on street clutter. Sometimes one cannot see the wood for the trees and movement around pavements is unsafe when there is clutter. There is general advice to avoid clutter, especially at road junctions. I will find out the specific answer about research and write to the noble Baroness.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, does the Minister agree that legislation to control fly-posting would in general be uncontentious. Although noting that he says that the Government are short of time, would he consider that to be a suitable subject for a government handout Bill in another place for those Members who have been lucky in the draw for Private Members' Bills?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I thought that Members of the other place balloted for Bills, introduced 10-Minute Bills and were not spoon-fed by the Government. I have seen the words "handout Bill" on documents for suitable legislation that would be ideal for Back-Benchers. I do not know about that.
	London boroughs have more enforcement powers than other local authorities. I do not know; it is not the Government's job to know how local authorities operate and whether they prosecute and take action. There is a case for a purge; nevertheless, there is a case for legislative strengthening of what we do. However, while the House is occupied with other very important matters, such as the subject we debated yesterday, we do not have room for fly-posting.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider withdrawing the Hunting Bill and replacing it in the legislative programme with such a Bill as has just been suggested?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not have a view, except that in due course I shall vote against the other Bill.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, surely the reason that people fly-post is that others want to read the information on their posters; otherwise, nobody would do it. Why do we not provide spaces where information can be posted legally, so that people can continue to benefit from fly-posting without the clutter?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is plenty of opportunity. Most streets are littered with billboards and advertising blocks—you go commercial and buy the space. Why should you steal someone's space or create danger by defacing lampposts, traffic signs and other street furniture at no cost, causing an environmental nuisance, creating a real problem and probably damaging property, leaving ratepayers to paint and clean such places even faster, and putting a burden on the taxpayer, when you can perfectly well buy advertising space?

Battlefields: Protection

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will introduce statutory protection for historic British battlefield sites so that those using metal detectors are required to obtain licences under Section 42 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 for the use of such instruments on these sites.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, at present, the Government have no powers to protect historic battlefields. We have commissioned a review designed to bring together listing, scheduling of ancient monuments and other regimes, such as the register of historic battlefields, into a unified system. The protection status for those historic sites will form part of the review. Public consultation on the proposals runs until 31st October, and we shall then publish our responses in a White Paper.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging and very positive reply. I am pleased that the consultation period is nearly over. I accept that metal detecting is generally a harmless and pleasurable activity that can sometimes be of great assistance to historians. However, does the Minister appreciate that the archaeological evidence of a battlefield generally consists of the artefacts lost during the conflict, and that if they are picked up in an uncontrolled way, such as happened, for example, at the metal detectorists' rally on Marston Moor battlefield last weekend, the archaeological integrity of those battlefields will be lost for ever? Can I impress on the Minister the importance of ensuring that battlefield sites are listed in the same way as other archaeological sites, and are not just treated as parts of historic landscape?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree entirely that metal detecting, unless done in accordance with proper standards and a proper code of practice, can be very damaging. We knew about the rally at Marston Moor. Liaison officers from the Portable Antiquities Scheme attended and assembled a mile and a half from the centre of the battlefield. I do not know whether that shows ignorance or good judgment. In the end, we recorded all the important objects found. Only nine objects related to the battle itself.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that, although liaison officers from the Portable Antiquities Scheme were at the Marston Moor rally, they are not often invited to metal detectorists' rallies, which is a problem? Perhaps they could strengthen their hand if they looked further at battle sites. Furthermore, does the Minister not agree that, as the Battlefields Trust pointed out vociferously, the danger to battlefield sites and the historic environment is not through metal detectorists in their own right, but through uncontrolled development?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with all that the noble Lord says. It is why we have a review that includes historic battlefield sites as part of the general subject of listing and scheduling. At present, it is entirely unsatisfactory that we can do nothing about battlefields, metal detectorists or anybody else, if they operate with the permission of the landowner and avoid scheduled sites. I hope that the noble Lord's parliamentary group will see fit to make appropriate representations to our consultation. It would be very welcome.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the late Lord Perth's Treasure Bill, which eventually became a government Bill, have no bearing? What is found today may be just a question of yesteryear, but it could be the treasure of future generations.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it does have a bearing. It is very helpful that we have the Treasure Act 1996. The definitions of what the Act covers are very difficult to understand. Coins—that is to say, two or more—must be from the same find and at least 300 years old. However, if the coins are less than 10 per cent gold or silver, there must be at least 10 of them. It is even more complicated for objects other than coins. We value the Treasure Act. In so far as it is helpful in our review, it will be taken into account.

Lord Luke: My Lords, we welcome the Government's initiative in bringing together these matters, and the forthcoming publication of a White Paper. On the other hand, does the Minister not accept that valuable work has been done by metal detector clubs, particularly in helping to delineate the boundaries of some sites, especially, in many cases, battlefields where documentation is extremely sparse? Does he not think that a sensible compromise could, and should, be reached that would benefit archaeology and provide scope for metal detecting enthusiasts to enjoy their activity?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Luke, will agree that I was careful not to condemn all metal detecting. Clearly, metal detecting carried out properly under an acceptable code of standards can contribute to knowledge—it can find things that nobody else can find. It is important that we have a proper definition of scheduled or listed sites, which should be the same for all purposes. It is important that, when we have done that, metal detectorists should work in an acceptable and agreed way. That is not to condemn all metal detecting.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, besides the battlefields in this country, do the Government possess the necessary authority in France and Belgium to protect effectively sites of battles from both World Wars in which British troops have been involved?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know the answer, so I shall have to write to the noble Lord. From recent debates on driving roads in Belgium across battlefield sites, my impression is that we have no powers—in fact, I am sure that that must be the case. Where there are battlefields in which British troops were involved, we would express our views to those concerned.

Sand Eels

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will insist that the European Union introduce an immediate moratorium on industrial fishing for sand eels throughout the North Sea following the recently announced figures which showed a collapse in sand eel catches and the non-appearance of this year's grilse run.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea is carrying out its assessment of the North Sea sand eels stock. It will be published after review by the Advisory Committee on Fishery Management in October, when we will consider whether further EU management action is needed. It is too early to say how the run of grilse has been affected. However, grilse have been particularly and worryingly absent in rivers in south and west England. It is very unlikely that west coast salmon are affected by the availability of sand eels in the North Sea.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, the Minister is obviously not a fisherman. If it is too early to say whether the grilse will arrive, something very odd is going on. Is it not totally irresponsible of the EU to allow factory fishing of a species that is so low down the food chain, as a result of which we are seeing pressure on the numbers of young salmon, cod and haddock? Surely we should take action on the precautionary principle to end the factory farming that threatens to empty our seas of a vital resource, and on which rural and coastal communities depend.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord has heard me confess that I am not a fisherman. However, the point that I was making was that it is not clear whether the decline in the sand eel population is affecting the return of the grilse. One of the problems is that the population of sand eels goes up and down very dramatically season by season, whereas it appears that something different is happening, not only in the areas where the sand eels have declined, but in other areas such as the west coast, where the fishing of sand eels cannot be the cause.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, are not the Government really dragging their heels on this? Back in 1999, the fisheries Minister, Elliot Morley, visited the Isle of May and was struck by the plight of kittiwakes and puffins. It is not just fish: birds are affected, as the Minister said. The problem goes very low down the food chain. Four years on, the Government seem to have done nothing. Is there no sense of urgency to stop this industrial fishing?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, a number of measures have been taken. The issue of sea birds was dealt with by the Government and some eel fishing has stopped off the north-east coast. In addition, the north-east coast driftnet fishery has been greatly reduced. A scheme introduced after some very difficult negotiations to reduce the number of driftnet fisheries taking the eels and the bycatch, including potentially salmon, is in place from this year. There is a continuing issue in relation to the industrial fishing of sand eels that we raised with the Danish industry in particular. However, the connection between that and the apparent severe decline in returning grilse and the salmon fisheries is not proven and may well be due to other causes.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that sand eels are the staple food of some sea birds, notably puffins, whose numbers may also collapse if the seabed is intensely scraped by fishermen? That would be a pity as puffins provide much amusement from their comic features and behaviour.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are all in favour of puffins and of ensuring that they have an adequate food supply. However, the problem is that the population of sand eels varies very drastically year by year apparently naturally, or in reaction to previous over-fishing, and is not correlated with the apparent level of fishing. Its effect up the food chain is not necessarily related to the level of fishing that has taken place in any given area. It is something, however, that we, the European Union and the international bodies are keeping a very close watch on.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, is it not unacceptable that the Government are only keeping a close watch on the situation? My noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean asked for a moratorium. How long will we have to wait? I sympathise with colleagues who have asked about the effect of the problem on wildlife, but the businesses and futures of many people, especially up in the North, are in jeopardy. When will the Government do something about it?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I have been trying to explain, the population of sand eels, of which there are billions, appears to go up and down every year. The issue of the returning salmon appears to be a more generalised problem—a very serious one—that is not solely confined by any means to the areas that are fished for sand eels. As I said, the west coast, Ireland, Iceland and France have all seen a serious decline in returning grilse, which at present does not appear to be a mere delay but an absolute and quite severe decline. That is more likely to be related to climatic conditions than to the fishing of sand eels in one particular location.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister tell us something about negotiations with the Danish Government on the matter? The Danes have enormously competent vessels that have been scraping the bottom of the sea for anything they can find to make fish meal. It is generally accepted that they can do great harm to all the species that live on sand eels.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, persuading the Danish and other industries affected to cut back would require us to be able to establish the detrimental effects on wildlife or commercial fishing. The problem is that the evidence has not yet been established. That is why we need this further assessment which the international bodies are now conducting.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, when the Minister says that the evidence has not yet been established, let us forget about the other species, what about the sand eels? This year there has been a catastrophic reduction in the number of sand eels being caught simply because they have scraped them off the bottom and they are destroying that population. Urgent action is required.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the sand eel fishing season has finished this year and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, is certainly right that the number of sand eels in the North Sea appear to have significantly declined. That is not unique, however, in the population cycle of the sand eel. However, the assessment post this season will make it clear whether more restrictions on the fishing of sand eels will be necessary and will need to be dealt with both bilaterally and with other member state governments at EU level. We need to make a full assessment. That will be available in October and we will take decisions in the light of that.

Government Communications Strategy

Lord McNally: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will announce the name of the senior civil servant who will take responsibility for the non-political aspects of government information and communications strategy following the departure of Mr Alastair Campbell.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, on 3rd September the Prime Minister published the interim report of the independent Government Communications Review Group. The report makes recommendations about the organisation of government communications at the centre.
	The House will be pleased to hear that the Government accept the group's recommendations in full. These include the appointment of a new permanent secretary, government communications, based in the Cabinet Office, and the appointment of a permanent civil servant as the Prime Minister's senior official spokesman who will be the deputy to the new permanent secretary.
	There will be an open competition for the post of permanent secretary, government communications. The intention is to get this process under way shortly.

Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Lord President agree that it is very important that senior civil servants have the confidence to say, "No, Prime Minister", as well as, "Yes, Prime Minister"? For that, it is equally important that selection is on merit and on the basis of political neutrality. I take it that his remarks give us those assurances. Would the new post also be strengthened by a Civil Service Act, which would guarantee that senior civil servants had the capacity to give unbiased advice?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, are extremely important and well founded. It is important that senior civil servants should maintain their independence, and perceived and actual objectivity. The permanent secretary will be a permanent civil servant. She or he will be selected by an open competition supervised by a panel chaired by the first Civil Service Commissioner. I hope that that reassures, not only the noble Lord, but your Lordships generally.
	On the question of the Civil Service Act, I know that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and my noble friend Lord Sheldon have adverted to this on a number of occasions. I hope that what I am about to say finds favour with your Lordships. The Government commit themselves to publishing a draft Bill for consultation on a Civil Service Act once the Public Administration Select Committee's proposals for a Civil Service Act have been published.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House agree that this would be a particularly good time for the Government to demonstrate their credentials for openness and transparency in their dealings with civil servants? Why does he think that the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life would describe the Government's response to his committee's recent report as a,
	"seriously missed opportunity to enhance public trust in the processes of government"?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with great respect, I dissent from that conclusion. The Government will have an independent ethics adviser. I repeat the point about our commitment to a draft Bill for consultation for a Civil Service Act, once the Select Committee's proposals have been published. We are proposing a new section to the code of conduct for special advisers, and we are further agreeing that, in future, the appointment of the First Civil Service Commissioner will be made following consultation with the leaders of the main Opposition parties. Anyone who had a spark of objectivity or, indeed, generosity would accept that those are significant steps forward.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, all of that sounds marvellous, but why is the Prime Minister still insisting on using Orders in Council to give political appointees the power to direct civil servants?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord said, "All of that sounds marvellous"; I am sure that it sounded equally marvellous when he was a distinguished member of the late Cabinet. Openness in public life is, in itself, a virtue. It also contributes to the accountability of government.
	All the steps that I have put forward ought to meet with the unanimous approval of the House. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has pressed us on this for a long time, as has my noble friend Lord Sheldon, and we are now delivering. Just occasionally, a spirit of calm objectivity in receiving the proposals might be welcome, if surprising.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is all very well to have a spirit of great cordiality, trust and love, but will the Minister please answer the question?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I welcome the cordiality: I do not think that I invited love—the noble Baroness seems to be making an inadvertent gesture, and I am sure that the television cameras will have focused on it. If they have not, I recommend that they do and that it be replayed on many appropriate prominent occasions.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sheldon is absent on parliamentary business in Frankfurt, but I am sure that, if he were here, he would be as delighted as I am with the replies that my noble and learned friend gave. For the first time, I am able to compliment my noble and learned friend completely, and I do not see how anybody could disagree with what the Government propose. Even the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, must accept that it was a thoroughly objective statement, as my noble friend Lord Sheldon would agree.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, normally, I am terrified when my noble friend Lord Barnett offers to be helpful. On this occasion, I believe him to be 100 per cent correct.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that the measures herald the end of the culture of spin and the return of the Government to a pristine, lily-white condition?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, all the governments in my memory have sought to present their achievements—or lack of them, in some cases—in the most favourable light. There is nothing new about that, as the longest-serving Minister in the Welsh Office in living memory can well remember.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord help me with a point of detail? In the new arrangements, what will be done with the Strategic Communications Unit? Who will end up running it?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the SCU will continue to work, and the special advisers there will work to Mr David Hill.

Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, and I pursued the matter because we thought that the previous arrangement was flawed. We accept what the noble and learned Lord the Lord President of the Council has said today as a recognition that the previous arrangements were flawed.
	There is, however, still some clearing-up to do. In a Written Answer to be published today to my Question about whether Mr Alastair Campbell's views on the BBC's coverage of the Iraq war was government policy, the noble and learned Lord said:
	"the BBC was responsible for some of the best journalism during the conflict in Iraq. However, as is well documented, the Government were critical of some aspects of their coverage".
	That is a long way from what Alastair Campbell said on Channel 4, which was that the BBC had an anti-war agenda. Can I take it that the Written Answer is a withdrawal of that accusation by the Government?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords. I repeat: the BBC was responsible, in the view of the Government, for some of the best journalism during the conflict in Iraq. We ought not to forget, when there are criticisms of journalists—print, television or sound—that journalists discharge an extremely important public duty and public service, often at serious damage to their own life, as we know.
	On the other hand, as is well documented, the Government were critical of some aspects of the BBC's coverage, as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, used to be critical, on occasion, of some aspects of the BBC's coverage when his party was in power. I hope that we never have a situation in this country in which there is a perfect identity of interest between government and the free press.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, did I hear the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House say that nobody with a spark of objectivity could disagree with the Government's approach? The chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life disagrees with the Government's approach. Is the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House saying that Sir Nigel Wicks does not have a spark of objectivity? If so, what is the point of his committee?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did not say that. Plainly, the art of selective quotation is not limited to former members of the Bar. I said that generosity and objectivity would, I respectfully suggested, require your Lordships to welcome the proposals. I repeat that, and I am grateful for the generous support of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. He has pressed the Government and, frequently, he has been met with answers that he thought were rather less than focused. The measures to which I have adverted today are a reasoned, proportionate response to the points made by my noble friends Lord Sheldon and Lord Barnett and the noble Lord, Lord McNally.

Lord Wilson of Dinton: My Lords, I welcome the Government's continued commitment to a Bill on the Civil Service, but I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord agrees that, if a competition is held to fill a post on the basis of merit, the role of the Minister is either to accept the person who wins the competition or to run the competition again.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am personally grateful to have that question from the noble Lord. When I was a baby Minister at the Home Office, he was my first permanent secretary. His teaching, instructions and stratagems have guided me since.
	It will be chaired by the First Civil Service Commissioner; that is as it should be. The process will start in the autumn. The noble Lord is right: when the recommendation is made, the appointment will be made by the Prime Minister, with the agreement of the relevant Minister, on the recommendation of the head of the Home Civil Service. Those are significant advances on what we have, and we should welcome them in a spirit of objectivity and generosity, as the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, said.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of House, my noble friend Lady Amos will, later this afternoon—the suggested time is after we have completed consideration of Commons amendments to the Local Government Bill—repeat a Statement on the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the 4th Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.(HL Paper 162)—(The Chairman of Committees.)
	Following is the report referred to:
	1. Thursday sittings
	As we indicated in our third report, we are reviewing the arrangement whereby the House sits at 11 a.m. on Thursdays but adjourns between 1.30 and 3.00 p.m. We should like to obtain the views of Members of the House and are therefore circulating a short questionnaire to all Members, to be returned by Friday 10 October. We shall meet again later in October to consider the responses.
	2. Proposed Standing Committee on the European Union Intergovernmental Conference
	The committee has considered a letter from the Leader of the House inviting it to consider a proposal for a Commons Standing Committee on the forthcoming European Union Intergovernmental Conference. The letter is printed as an annex to this report.
	The proposal is similar to that for a Standing Committee on the Convention on the Future of Europe, on which we reported in our second report of last session and to which the House agreed on 24 June 2002. In both cases the procedure permits Lords to attend and speak, but not to vote, nor to move Motions or count towards the quorum. The new proposal is, however, for a Standing Committee that would engage with Ministers rather than parliamentary representatives.
	Some members of the committee have reservations about the basis on which Members of this House are to be permitted to participate. A procedure in which Members of both Houses played an equal part might be preferable. We recognise, however, that what is proposed represents a development from the Standing Committee on the convention and that no new precedent will be set.
	Accordingly we invite the House to agree to the participation of Lords in the new Standing Committee.

Annex: Letter from the Leader of the House, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to the Chairman, Lord Brabazon of Tara, dated 4 September 2003

COMMONS STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE EU INTER GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE
	As I am sure you know, the Convention on the Future of Europe has reported, and an Inter Governmental Conference (IGC) to consider its recommendations will convene on 4 October.
	Parliament scrutinised the Convention by means (among others) of a Commons Standing Committee, with the novel procedure that Lords could attend and speak, though not vote, move motions or count towards the quorum. Our House agreed to this procedure on 24 June 2002, on the basis of the Procedure Committee's 2nd Report. Some Lords expressed doubts about the procedure at the outset, but I believe it is now generally agreed to have been a success.
	The Government now proposes to replicate the procedure, more or less, to enable Parliament to scrutinise the IGC. In the next few days, my colleague Peter Hain will invite the Commons to create a Standing Committee on the IGC. It will differ from the Standing Committee on the Convention in that, rather than engaging with parliamentary representatives, it will engage with Ministers: it will be able to receive written reports from Ministers, and oral Statements on which Ministers can be questioned, as well as holding general debates. And as well as general debates on written reports by Ministers, there will be the option of debates on specific subjects, on the adjournment. As before, Lords will be permitted to attend and speak, though not to vote, move motions or count towards the quorum.
	If Lords are to gain full advantage from this procedure, the House will need to agree to it promptly once a Message arrives from the Commons, and no later than 18 September. Ideally, of course, the House would do so on the basis of a report of the Procedure Committee, as before. Therefore may I invite you to put this proposition on the agenda of the Procedure Committee for its meeting on 9 September?
	As it happens, the House is to debate the Convention on that very day. This will give Baroness Symons an opportunity to explain this proposal, without of course taking for granted the view of either the Committee or the House.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, the report is a sensible one. I agree that Members of your Lordships' House should be able to attend, speak at or vote at any of the meetings of the proposed Standing Committee on the European Union Intergovernmental Conference. How will we know when the committee will meet, where it will meet and what it will discuss, so that we can decide whether to attend?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have read the report closely. I took part in the Standing Committee on the Convention on the Future of Europe. I attended all of its meetings, and, as noble Lords would expect, I asked questions and spoke at all of those meetings.
	I agree with the report where there is some disagreement on whether the arrangements are satisfactory. In spite of the excellent chairmanship of Mr Frank Cook, who was extremely fair, he had great difficulty in keeping a quorum. Several times the committee had to be adjourned and attending Members had to wait until a quorum could be found, which is entirely unsatisfactory and time wasting.
	I should like to have an assurance—although I do not know where from—that Ministers will treat Members of this House equally with Members of another place. Often, when we pass amendments which Ministers do not like, severe criticism is made of this House. It is implied that this House is less important than another place, which it probably is, and that we should not seek to quarrel with what the Commons has done. I hope that we can be assured that Ministers will recognise that members of the committee, in their questioning and speeches, will be equal, even if they are not equal in making the committee quorate. Perhaps that is a matter which should be pursued further.
	As regards the number of meetings, I do not know how and when they will take place, but I hope that all Members of this House will receive information about the Standing Committee meetings. I do not know whether they can receive an agenda, but we must ensure that every Member is able to attend because they know when the committee is sitting. I am not at all sure that the previous arrangements were satisfactory. With that, I welcome the report and the formation of this Standing Committee.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I, too, welcome this move. I share the view expressed: it is a statement of fact that great difficulties were experienced in the keeping of a quorum of the predecessor committee. Although Members of this House are, in a sense, invitees to the proposed committee, as a practical matter, it might be reasonable to contemplate Members of this House constituting a part of the quorum. I cannot see that that would challenge the fact that this is primarily the committee of another place. On many occasions, for practical reasons, such as Divisions in another place, it became quite a fractured experience. If the successor committee is to be effective, such fracturing would be unfortunate, but possibly not entirely avoidable. I wonder whether, underlying a provision to be counted towards a quorum, there is an issue of principle, which makes it an unacceptable practical solution to a practical problem.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken so far on this issue. I think that they have all referred to the intergovernmental conference. The noble Lords, Lord Barnett, Lord Stoddart and Lord Maclennan, have all talked about the Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference, the quorum, and so forth. Those issues were raised in the Procedure Committee, as will be seen in the second part of its report.
	Future meetings will be advertised, as they were for the convention committee. I should draw your Lordships' attention—particularly, perhaps, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—to the next item of business on the Order Paper. It is a Motion by the noble and learned Lord the Lord President of the Council that the intergovernmental conference Motion be resolved. I do not want to duck this issue—well, I do want to duck this issue—but the questions might be better put to the noble and learned Lord on the next Motion on the Order Paper rather than the one that we are on now. I commend the report to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Inter-Governmental Conference

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Any questions which your Lordships may have would be best addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon.
	Moved to resolve, That the Commons Message of 16th September be now considered; and that any Lord may participate in the proceedings of the Standing Committee on the Inter-Governmental Conference appointed by the Commons, but may not vote or move any Motion or be counted in the quorum.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I turn to the point on the quorum. I shall not mention the names, but I have served on two Joint Committees; the quorum is a perennial and constant problem. We cannot be part of a quorum unless we have a vote. Therefore, it requires rethinking, to some degree, about where your Lordships' stand on these committees. I suggest that some thought be given to whether those who accept to serve on these committees do not, as a matter of honour, agree to attend because on so many occasions there has been no quorum. The matter could be considered by an appropriate committee of this House.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may shake the Leader of the House by offering warm enthusiasm for what he has done with regard to the second stage of the scrutiny of the IGC. In the light of concerns expressed by Members of this House about the issue of noble Lords not counting towards a quorum, not being able to move a Motion and not being able to vote, perhaps the appropriate mechanism would be a Joint Committee of the two Houses rather than a Standing Committee of the Commons, which obviously implies these limitations on the rights of Peers.
	Having said that, although we are grateful for this second stage, we hope that the noble and learned Lord can assure us that it does not set a precedent for any future studies of this kind on matters arising from the European Union. There is a particular reason for that. Apart from procedures which have left us with a Standing Committee rather than a Joint Committee, a tremendous contribution is made by this House towards the scrutiny and consideration of European Union developments and legislation. I hope that the noble and learned Lord is able to give us an assurance that this second stage—which we accept because it is the second stage of a Standing Committee—does not imply any precedent for the future.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, first, I shall deal with the questions that remained unanswered, asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and my noble friend Lord Barnett. Of course, then I shall give way to the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Stoddart.
	The noble Baroness is right. This is a Commons committee, which is the reason that Peers will be invited to attend and speak, but not to vote, move Motions or count towards the quorum. The noble Baroness rightly identified the nature of this committee and that this is a second stage. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has indicated that this will be a useful co-operative venture.
	For the future, we should determine whether we can agree possible differences with our colleagues in the Commons. The noble Baroness will know that a number of these points were raised at the Procedure Committee. I promised to write immediately to my right honourable friend Peter Hain, as Leader of the Commons. I did, and copied the letter to the noble Baroness, to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I am awaiting a reply because the letter went only a few days ago.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and my noble friend Lord Barnett asked specific questions which I should answer. There was concern before the committee met on previous occasions about notice of meetings. I think that that was dealt with satisfactorily in the end. It is a Commons committee but, of course, our colleagues in the Commons want to be helpful. Therefore, the plan is for meetings to be set after consultation between the FCO and the usual channels in the House of Commons. The FCO has undertaken to keep the Chief Whip's Office informed. As always, the office of my noble friend Lord Grocott will ensure that the usual channels are kept in the picture. I hope that gives a degree of assurance.
	Questions were also put about whether an FCO Minister would be present on every occasion. I am happy to say that I understand that a Minister will always be in attendance, but not on every occasion can there necessarily be a guarantee that it would be a Minister from the FCO.
	I did not want those questions to go unanswered because they were specific and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was quite right to say that I would deal with them.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we welcome the continuation of this committee in a new form, but I wish to make a serious point relating to the issue of the quorum which I should like the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to take back to his colleagues for consideration. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I attended all the earlier committee meetings. Because the quorum for the committee is quite large and confined to Members of the other place, interruptions frequently arise. Indeed, on one occasion we had to abandon the meeting of the committee altogether which, after it had been planned a month ahead, was very tedious.
	The problem could be solved by reducing the size of the quorum so that it would not be necessary to keep Members of another place there in such large numbers. It would be a simple move and is one that should be given some attention. In that way we could achieve uninterrupted attendance at the committee, which was successful and I hope will be as successful in the future.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for that suggestion. It certainly offers one possible solution. A further long-term solution referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is that if one had a Joint Committee, it is possible that the problem of the quorum could be solved in that way.
	I undertake to do as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has invited me: I shall bring this proposal to the attention of the Leader of the Commons. I know, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has very distinguished experience of serving on a Joint Committee when he was a Member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which avoided some of these difficulties.
	For the moment, however, it is understood that this is a Commons committee which noble Lords attend but in which they do not participate any more fully than I have indicated. However, it seems to me that there is no reason why we should not have perfectly calm and rational discussions to see how procedures can be improved with the agreement of both Houses.

Lord Renton: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord take the opportunity to have a word with the Leader of the House in another place so that he may tell the members of the committee that, although Members of your Lordships' House will not have a vote, there are among our Members far more people with experience and expertise of the relevant matters than can be found in another place?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall convey the message of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in as tactful a way as possible.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I was about to criticise the buck-passing which appeared to be taking place between the Lord Chairman of Committees and the Leader of the House, but of course the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has now accepted the buck and dealt with it very well indeed.
	The only point I wish to emphasise is that Ministers really must treat Members of this House equally. I should like an assurance that they will do so.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as I said earlier, I shall transmit the concerns expressed by noble Lords to the Leader of the Commons. Perhaps the best course for me to follow is to enclose a copy of Lords' Hansard relating to these matters.
	On the matter of the quorum, I think I can help a little further. In the committee on the convention, only Commons Members who were members of certain Select Committees could count towards the quorum. In the committee on the IGC, all MPs count towards the quorum, so it is reasonably possible that the problem of a failed quorum may be mitigated. However, I shall take these points forward. We can move on only by agreement, but I do not see why we should not look for a reasonable compromise on this issue.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not want to hold up the proceedings for any longer than necessary. However, while listening to this discussion I have become increasingly concerned. It has highlighted the concern felt by many of us that this is a Commons committee. There seems to be no reason at all why it should not have been a Joint Committee, and the fact that it is not one seems to suggest that, once again, there is not a full realisation in the other place of the important role we play.
	Bearing in mind the expertise in this House, I think it extraordinary that it was thought sufficient to have a Commons committee rather than a Joint Committee. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will press on his colleagues in another place our case for Joint Committees to be set up in the future.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a perfectly legitimate point and I was not derogating from the theme of his remarks simply by endorsing what was said by the noble Baroness. She pointed out that today we are dealing with the present circumstances: this is a Commons committee and therefore we have limited "rights".
	I undertake to put forward all these points to the Leader of the Commons. However, I have to say that both he and Mr Cook, his immediate predecessor but one—his immediate predecessor was in place for too short a time to hold any meaningful discussions—have been extremely helpful and receptive to all proposals that I have put forward in the interests of this House.
	On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Local Government Bill

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.
	Moved, That the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO A CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENT AGREED TO AND COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

[The page and line references are to HL Bill 43 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

3 Clause 11, page 5, line 32, leave out paragraph (b) The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	3A Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 3A.
	I do not need to remind noble Lords that the Commons reason relies on the privilege of that House to determine matters relating to the financial arrangements of the country. That is only right and it is the principle on which relations between this House and the other place rest. However, we now have a further amendment before the House, Amendment No. 3B, which will be moved and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in due course. First, I beg the indulgence of noble Lords to make the following comments.
	It will be apparent to anyone who reads this along with the previous amendment that the new amendment is designed to have the same effect as Amendment No. 3; namely, to remove the power of the Secretary of State to pool a proportion of housing capital receipts. As we all know, this is a vital issue which, over the past few months, has been discussed at some length at every stage in the proceedings of the Bill. It goes to the heart of the housing capital finance system.
	To put it simply, Amendment No. 3B would remove the ability of central government to redistribute and allocate housing resources on the basis of need. It would put an end to this fundamental principle of capital finance, which of course was introduced by the previous administration and has been in place since 1990.
	Without pooling, we would probably have to continue to operate a redistribution mechanism based on the principles underlying the current system. This could be only a partial solution. However, Clause 11, which we have been considering, introduces a system which is simpler, fairer and more transparent. I have used the word "fairer" quite deliberately because it would remove the unfair anomaly which exists at the moment. This anomaly gives special treatment and special benefits to one category of local authority in a purely arbitrary way. These are the authorities—around 40 of them—which are able, because of the mechanics of the system, to retain the housing capital receipts that arise in their area.
	It is simply wrong that some authorities should have more spending power than others, regardless of housing need, simply because they happen to be rich in right-to-buy receipts or are debt-free. This is the fault of the present system which our pooling proposals address.
	As noble Lords will know, I do not accept that the situation in which those authorities find themselves is the result of good financial management or good planning. It is neither of those. We are talking here about funds generated solely by the decision of tenants to buy their own house, not by any action of the local authority. And we are talking about a level of funding determined not through any assessment of need, but by the mechanics of the housing market, in particular in parts of the country where house prices are buoyant.
	There is no justification on intellectual or moral grounds to exempt one category of authorities from their proper contribution to the country's housing need. It goes without saying that redistribution must apply to all if it is to be fair to all. Without it, affordable housing for key workers, decent homes and market renewal for low-demand areas would all be put at risk. Without redistribution, local authorities with debt, with lower capital receipts and with a greater housing investment need will lose out. That would disadvantage most of the nearly 260 authorities with housing stock.
	Let me take at random five authorities which will be damaged by the amendment. Liverpool, Wigan, Milton Keynes, Solihull and Islington will all be worse off if the amendment is allowed to stand in the Bill.
	There is a simple question before us today. Do we in this House accept that fairness in the allocation of funds should be paramount based on principle and transparency? Or do we believe that funding should fall where it arises, which of course is wholly down to an accident of history or geography?
	Finally, I know that noble Lords have been concerned that the debt-free authorities will have made plans to use the receipts generated by their tenants. We recognise that—the point has been put very forcefully—and we have offered such authorities very generous transitional arrangements. This is the right response to the concerns of those authorities rather than removing the important new provisions that the Government initially proposed in the Bill. If in due course the matter should be pressed to a Division, I urge the House to reject Amendment No. 3B.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 3A—(Lord Rooker.)

Baroness Hanham: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 3A, leave out from "disagreed" to end and insert ", but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof"—
	3Bpage 5, line 33, leave out from "receipt" to end and insert "to be used by the receiving authority in accordance with directions by the Secretary of State"

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, there have been a number of debates on the retention and pooling of capital receipts arising from right-to-buy sales. I do not propose to weary the House by rehearsing the arguments in great detail, but I am bound to say something in view of the fact that the Minister got his say in first. No doubt he will also have an opportunity to get his say in last.
	It is our contention that authorities which have prudently harnessed resources from right-to-buy sales, or successfully promulgated the right-to-buy policy, and ended up debt free, either through prudence or good management, should not be put under pressure and have their capital receipts sequestered—which is how it was put in the other place—by the Government. It is proposed that those capital receipts should be snatched from them and given to authorities which the Government decide need them more than the authorities which got them together and harnessed them. The Minister referred to some authorities that would be disbenefited if the money was not pooled.
	My knowledge is that these capital receipts amount to £120 million, which is not a great deal of money within the Government's capital allocation policy.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, let us get the figures right. It is £1.2 billion, not £120 million. We estimate that approximately £1.2 billion of housing capital receipts will be pooled.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I disagree, but I shall not pursue the issue because it does not alter the principle of the matter.
	All the way through, the Government have suggested that the Bill will give freedoms and flexibilities, but when it comes to the retention of capital receipts it stops that. A local authority cannot spend its capital receipts on what it perceives its priorities to be.
	The Government seem to have the idea that local authorities that have these capital receipts will rush off and buy Rolls-Royces or do something luxurious and debonair with the money. By and large, most of them want the money to carry out small-scale key worker developments; to provide capital for the development of their properties, probably housing; or to provide affordable housing.
	The difference between us is that we say they should be able to do so and the Government say, "Sorry, individual local authority, you should not be able to do that because we want your money to take elsewhere and give it to someone else". The purpose of pooling, of course, is to put the money into one pot and for the Government to distribute it, at their own inclination, to the authorities that they wish to have it.
	We do not believe that the authorities that have accumulated money from capital receipts have done so through an accident of history. Most of them have made good use of the right to buy. They have drawn that right to the attention of their tenants, who were, in the past, in a position to obtain a very good discount. The Government, of course, have put their feet on that system as well.
	The amendment would ensure that the Government could not take the money away at will. The local authorities that have these capital receipts would discuss the issue with the Government and come to an agreement on what they should be spent on. This would ensure that the money was spent on government priorities—for example, on key worker housing—or it may be, amazingly, that the local authority's priorities were agreed to.
	That is the aim of the amendment. The Minister is correct to say that it would stop the pooling arrangement—but that is the one thing that all these local authorities are adamantly against, as is the Local Government Association. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 3A, leave out from "disagreed" to end and insert ", but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof"—
	3Bpage 5, line 33, leave out from "receipt" to end and insert "to be used by the receiving authority in accordance with directions by the Secretary of State"

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I have read with interest the debate on this issue in another place. The Minister has today reiterated many of the arguments that the Minister there, Nick Raynsford, made against agreeing to the amendment passed in this House on the use of local authority housing capital receipts.
	One of the reasons given was that it would undermine one of the fundamental principles of housing finance, which allows the redistribution of housing capital receipts to areas of greatest need. Both Ministers said that. It was a principle that the Conservative government followed when they were in office. However, at that time, when the Labour Party was in opposition, my memory is that it did not believe it or support it.
	We on these Benches have always stood by our views on this issue. We believe in local government autonomy. We believe that decisions should be taken closest to those they affect, by elected people who are closely involved in their communities. We accept that this means that different authorities, facing different circumstances and different issues and having different histories, will come to different conclusions and find themselves in different positions. That is what devolution is all about.
	Throughout the passage of the Bill the Government have said that they will sign up to greater local autonomy and incentives for councils that have prudent financial administration. We all agree with that. The amendments the Government are opposing go along with those principles, whereas the Government's view does not; it is against those principles.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has reiterated the point made by the Minister in another place that accepting the original amendment would deprive housing authorities in areas of high housing stress of the resources they need to fulfil pressing demands for housing. It is the Government's choice about how they wish to use this money.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, referred to the figures and the finance. This matter is not as straightforward as the Minister said. We had considerable discussions in Committee, when I moved complicated amendments with complicated information, much of which was gathered from the Committee proceedings in another place. To a great degree, these were brushed aside and we still do not have clear financial figures. That is also true of the debate in another place.
	Why cannot the Government use the high rises there have been in the stamp duty take as a result of the increase in house prices over recent years? That really would be redistribution of housing money. I think there would be some justification for that, given the lack of supply within the housing market. The lowest number of homes built since 1924 has led to high house prices.
	Ironically, the Ministers in both another place and here today said that the councils had their money not because it was generated by good financial management or good planning—a fairly sweeping statement if one has any knowledge of the wide range of local authorities in Britain today—but simply because tenants had decided to buy their houses in areas where house prices are buoyant and the stamp duty take will have been high.
	The other principle broken by the ability to take capital receipts from local authorities is the retrospective nature of this course of action. The Government claim that local authorities received grants, and all they are doing is clawing the money back. But they are clawing back money that local authorities have made over the years for a variety of reasons, money that was given to completely different administrations at a completely different time.
	In another place, the Government resorted to quite a lot of political knockabout. I am glad that has not happened today, so I shall not say some of the things I was going to say. But to vote against a proposal with which one disagrees in principle does not mean that one does not recognise the sort of problems faced by some authorities that the Minister outlined.
	The amendment is a compromise against the principles on which we on these Benches stand. But it gives the Government the ability to direct those housing capital receipts to be spent on housing. As others have said, few authorities in this country do not have pressing local housing problems. We have seen reduced social housing, much of which is not energy-efficient, and elderly people living in cold, damp homes. All over Britain there is a lack of affordable key worker homes. Local authorities have duties under the Homelessness Act 2002 to bring empty properties back into use. Those are some of the things local authorities have to deal with.
	I have been consistent in my stance on this from my days on Southampton City Council under a Conservative Government through four years in another place under a Conservative Government, and I am saying the same things today, under a Labour Government. We have shifted our stance on this: we are supporting a compromise, and I hope that the Government will be able to do the same. We on these Benches support the amendment.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I want to make it clear that this amendment is not a compromise. I invite anybody who wants a definition of wishy-washy Liberal Democrats to read in tomorrow's Hansard the speech we have just heard. I think the noble Baroness should be ashamed of herself and her party should be ashamed of itself for the stand that they are taking on this. Not once have either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives spelt out the consequences. If you oppose pooling—and I have repeatedly invited answers to this—there are only certain alternatives. They are less investment by the most needy authorities, higher taxes to make good the money that is currently retained or cuts in other programmes. Not one of them has had the guts to stand up and say which one of those alternatives they would go for, unless we are just about to hear.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, what I actually proposed was another place from which we could get the money because I disagree with the principle of taking this money. I made that quite clear.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness says she will vote for the amendment. I will give her a few examples of who will lose out if the amendment is carried. Brent will lose £2 million. I hope the Liberal Democrat candidate will go to the public tonight and say, "Our Lib Dems have voted to lose £2 million for Brent's housing". Brent has to be an authority in need. As for Liverpool—and I think the Lib Dems are in charge of Liverpool—it would lose £1.5 million as a result of accepting this amendment. Bournemouth will lose £250,000, Solihull £180,000 and Wokingham £150,000.
	This is "make your mind up time". Are we concerned about using the resources of the nation based on housing need? It is no good saying everybody has equal need—they have not. I accept that they will all have needs—even in the most well off areas, there will be pockets of need. But it is a question of the scale of the need compared with the resources available. That is what we are inviting the House to accept in this pooling arrangement.
	As I have said, there are alternatives. We will be depriving needy authorities of much needed investment in housing based not on a whim or a hunch but on the housing needs of the people living in those authorities. I have read out some losers and no doubt I could read out more. I invite the Liberal Democrats to think seriously about what they are doing here today.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I think we have finally got to the Minister. I have not seen him so exercised about anything for a very long time. We have been having very calm and balanced discussions throughout the Bill's proceedings.
	I said that I would not tweak the Minister too hard about the amount of money involved, but I wish to refer to Tuesday's Commons debate in Hansard. My honourable friend Mr Philip Hammond asked the Minister to,
	"confirm for the record that the sum involved in relation to debt-free authorities—the only ones that will be directly affected in cash terms by the measure—is about £120 million, and not £800 million, £1.8 billion or any other exaggerated figure?"
	Mr Raynsford responded:
	"The figure that I quoted—
	which was in a previous part of the debate—
	"was the total sum that we estimate will be brought within the pooling arrangements".
	Those are the billions. We are talking about £120 million. Mr Raynsford continued:
	"That is similar to the set-aside. The figure for debt-free authorities is £120 million, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/9/03; cols. 599-600.]
	I suggest that if the Minister disagrees with that, he disagrees with Mr Raynsford. Our understanding is that the sum is about £120 million. The amounts that the Minister has just said might be lost are to authorities which, I am fascinated to discover, have already been identified.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I probably will not be able to come back, but so there is no misunderstanding about this, of the £120 million, the figures are for the authorities I have just quoted, so it might not seem a large sum of money. The estimated pooling of right-to-buy receipts generates £1.2 billion, of which £120 million will come from the debt-free authorities. But the amendment affects all authorities as the set-aside will not continue, so there will be damage all round.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we are talking about the right-to-buy money. We are talking about money that will be scooped up from authorities which have had it in their accounts because the Minister is able to take it away from them. He has already identified and made it clear that the Government have already spent the money to be scooped up from these authorities by, if nothing else, at least allocating it to authorities, some of which he has read out.
	The amounts of money that the Minister read out are not fantastic. Two million pounds will not cover much in the way of building in Brent, which would probably require £200 billion.
	The Government will dictate to authorities which have raised this money in capital receipts by good careful management. They will say, "You do not need this money; by some dint or other you have managed to scoop up this money but you will not be allowed to spend it on anything".
	If this is what a compromise is, we have suggested in the amendment that that money should be recognised as part and parcel of the budget and the money for the local authorities, but that they should be able to spend it in line with their priorities and the Government's recognition of those priorities. If key worker housing is not a priority in very many parts of this country—not only for authorities with big debts and big requirements—I know not what we have been talking about for these many months past. I know not what the Secretary of State is talking about when he is trying to develop all the areas in the South East.
	The amendment would allow those authorities to keep the money to use it for their priorities in a way that is associated with housing. I cannot make the matter clearer than that. I believe that the proposal would be a right and proper way to deal with housing capital receipts. Therefore, I must ask the House to agree with my amendment.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3B) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 139; Not-Contents, 118.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

6Before Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
	"Application of provisions of this Part
	The provisions of this Part may only be applied to those local authorities that have been identified by the Audit Commission as at risk of overspending their total budget by more than 10 per cent."
	The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	6A Because it would affect the levy of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 6A.
	As it is self-evident, I do not need to remind noble Lords that the Commons reason relies on the privilege of that House to determine matters relating to the financial arrangements of the country. That is the principle on which our relations exist. I have a massively long note to put to the House on why we are inviting noble Lords not to insist on their amendment. As the amendment was passed with seriousness, I shall take it seriously and use the note to put on the record again why we do not want to accept the amendment and think that the House should agree with the view of the Commons.
	The amendment agreed by this House at Third Reading inserted a new clause, Amendment No. 6, at the beginning of Part 2 of the Bill. The clause said that Part 2 could be applied only to an authority that has been identified by the Audit Commission as at risk of overspending its total budget by more than 10 per cent. We explained at Third Reading the perverse and highly undesirable effects of this overspending test.
	To summarise, the amendment requires the Audit Commission to undertake an entirely new task that will be costly and potentially very contentious. Every local authority budget will have to be scrutinised and assessed to prepare a blacklist of potential overspenders. Inclusion on the list might amount to a statement that an authority had set an illegal budget. In other circumstances, inclusion would tarnish the reputation of an authority that had perfectly adequate reserves to cover the overspend. Authorities at financial risk would not be reliably identified, and it would deny most authorities the use of Clause 30 to deal with a financial crisis, a provision universally welcomed in local government.
	We cannot see how any responsible person could support the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. On the other hand, I could have said that about the previous amendment. We are told that its supporters' interest is not in the precise form of the clause, but in the fact that it will restrict the impact of Part 2. So I should turn to Part 2, and why it was included in the first place.
	The Government's intention to introduce legislation on reserves was signalled in the December 2001 White Paper. It was announced there as part of a package that included the new freedoms and flexibilities—the "bonfire of controls" to which I have already referred which affect local authorities—which we are also implementing in this Bill, if it ever reaches the statute book. If the Bill does not receive Royal Assent tomorrow, then everyone's aspirations for a new local government finance system starting in the next financial year will be down the plughole. That is not a threat; it is, as we have said all along, simply the position that we are in. Local government understands that as well. Unless that happens, the new system of freedoms and flexibilities cannot start in the next financial year. But I digress.
	We regard the financial management provisions as an essential complement to the new freedoms. On the one hand, there is a whole host of freedoms; on the other, Part 2 is available for reasons which I shall explain.
	The prudential system will allow local authorities to borrow up to the amount that they assess they can afford. That is an immense new freedom for authorities and places great trust in their financial competence. Of course safeguards have been built in, largely in the form of requiring authorities to comply with professional good practice. Some authorities have no problem with this approach in Part 1, but see it as an affront to their competence in Part 2. I invite the House to look at the Bill and these changes as an overall package. In that respect, without Part 2, there could have been no Part 1.
	The prudential system will allow authorities to make full use of their borrowing capacity, in a way that the present system does not. Authorities will need to ensure they are adequately resourced to meet the revenue consequences of this borrowing and cope with the uncertainties involved. It is therefore equally important that there are safeguards against risks affecting the revenue account, and the principal ways to do that are to ensure that there are adequate reserves and a rigorous system for monitoring the budget during the year. That is what Part 2 is all about and what it does.
	There are also more subtle links between borrowing and revenue account. Under the former rigid system, there was a ceiling on borrowing set by government for each authority. If an authority was in financial difficulties on revenue account, central government have, in the most difficult cases, allowed revenue expenditure to be capitalised and financed by borrowing. However, under the prudential system, every authority will fix its own prudential limit based on what it assesses it can afford to borrow. An authority would be entitled to borrow up to that limit. If a crisis on revenue account were then to hit them which could not be covered by reserves, there would not be room to accommodate additional borrowing. Borrowing and revenue spending are therefore intimately linked, and it is irresponsible to place safeguards on one and completely ignore the other.
	We will also be giving authorities new powers to trade, a freedom that has met with a general welcome. Trading will of course be carried out with the objective of making a profit, but all trading operations are inherently risky, and an authority can make losses as well as profits. They will need to ensure that reserves are adequate to cover that happening if they are to avoid the risk of their mainstream services being damaged.
	The point we are making is that greater financial freedoms for councils inevitably carry with them greater financial risk. Part 2 is there to reinforce the processes that any well-managed council would follow anyway to safeguard against those risks. However, for the Government not to have taken measures to strengthen those safeguards would, we think, have been irresponsible.
	Much has been made in our debates of the opposition to these clauses from local government. I should like to provide some balance to what was said in earlier debates, which often relied on selective quotation. Clause 30, which I have mentioned, has been universally welcomed. That has not been acknowledged. The Audit Commission, it is said, is opposed to Clause 26. In fact, in evidence to the Select Committee, the Audit Commission said:
	"We can see the desirability for the government to have the flexibility to be able, in exceptional cases, to set a maximum level of reserves in support of intervention".
	That is how Clause 26 would be used—in exceptional cases—a point which we have made repeatedly.
	CIPFA's opposition has been quoted, and it is true that CIPFA opposed Part 2 in its evidence to the Select Committee. However, I ask the House to look at what it said. Referring to the setting of reserves, CIPFA said:
	"it is a very local decision and judgement as to what that level of balances should be".
	We agree. We introduced Clause 25 to help ensure that a very carefully considered judgment is made in the light of local circumstances. We have also made it clear that we will not use Clause 26 to impose blanket minima.
	I repeat what we said about the use of Clause 26. We will make regulations under it only if an authority is disregarding the advice of its chief financial officer and heading for severe financial difficulties. In deciding the level to set, we would have regard to the chief financial officer's advice and any observations of the auditor. I cannot see how we could go further in ensuring that the minimum would be appropriate to the specific circumstances of that particular authority. We have listened to what CIPFA said, and we have acted on its views.
	Part 2 has been thoroughly debated in both Houses and at all stages of the Bill in this House. In another place no Division was moved against it on its initial consideration. The Conservative spokesman, Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, referring to decisions on reserves said:
	"We must all accept that there will be occasions when elected representatives will get it wrong. The problem arises when they get it so badly wrong that the authority cannot deliver its statutory level of services. The higher authority, the Secretary of State and the district auditor have a role to ensure the continuance of services".
	That is an absolutely first-class summary of the role of Clause 26. The removal of Clause 26 was specifically considered by your Lordships at Report stage and was voted down on a Division.
	Another place has disagreed with this House's amendment on grounds that turn on the privileges of the Commons. It is for each House to decide its own privilege but I move that this House do not insist on the amendment not just on grounds of privilege and not just on the grounds of the added burdens and undesirable effects that will flow from the new clause, but principally to ensure that new freedoms in this Bill, which are welcomed on all sides, can be implemented safely and responsibly by all authorities.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 6A.—(Lord Rooker.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have received advice that this is a privilege matter and therefore I cannot divide the House on it. All I can do is to complain again—if complaint is what it is—about the measure in Part 2 that we are discussing.
	We have debated at great length the reasons behind the disagreement between us on whether the Government should be able to set minimum reserves or whether that is a step too far. The Minister went into some detail again today about local authorities which might have borrowed badly or indiscreetly or should not have borrowed as much as they had or which are running their revenue accounts into difficulties. However, our argument has always been that by the time you get round to setting a minimum reserve, it is too late. The damage is done. The relevant local authorities have got into difficulty. That is not the moment to try to bail them out with a minimum reserve.
	The Minister heard me say on a previous occasion that the director of finance of the authority which I led always insisted that there should be at least two months' worth of salaries and wages in the reserve. He considered that that was the lowest limit. Most finance officers would agree with that and would give the same advice. If we say that the Bill confers freedoms and flexibility, the Government must let go. They must understand that where one confers freedom, one takes to some extent a marginal risk. The marginal risk which we have foreseen during discussion on the Bill is that some authority, somewhere will go horribly wrong. We mentioned the odd local authority that has gone horribly wrong. In those cases it would have been completely irrelevant whether one had said that they ought to have a minimum reserve as they probably would not have had one and, if they had, they would have spent it. The purpose of the measure we are discussing seems to me to be completely arcane in the light of what the Bill is intended to do.
	The amendment that we put forward recognises what the Minister said today; namely, that on a very limited number of occasions it might be necessary for the Audit Commission to recommend a minimum reserve. The amendment was a bit of a compromise as regards the others that we put forward. I believe that it was debated with some vigour in the other place last night.
	We could all quote selectively from CIPFA and from the Audit Commission. My quotes would back up what I wanted to say and the Minister's would back up what he wanted to say. However, that is not relevant. What is relevant is that local government thinks that the measure we are discussing is wrong and unnecessary. The Local Government Association was against the measure from the outset. We have supported local government in that and we believe that that was the proper thing for us to do.
	It has been said that this measure can be decided only by the Commons. I do not wish to disagree with that but I cannot quite understand the decision that was arrived at. However, I shall not cause even more trouble by querying it. I simply say that when the moment comes I shall not move the relevant amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we on these Benches accept that this is a privilege matter, but it was strange to hear that the amendment which this House passed would affect the levy of local revenues. Certainly it is a financial matter but I would not have described it in that way. Part 2 is about minimum reserves and monitoring. Although the Minister talked seductively about the new powers for local authorities—for example, in terms of borrowing and charging—they are set out elsewhere in the Bill. I thought that the Minister's linking of this part with the other parts of the Bill was interestingly creative.
	The Minister explained how responsibly and carefully the Government will use, or not use, the provision that we are discussing. I accept that. That brings us to the point which we discuss regularly with any Bill; namely, what will happen if a different party gains office? I am sure that if the party of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, were in power, they would do away with the measure within the first week of coming to office. Our party would do the same. But when one is considering a point of principle, one has to look beyond the immediate term. I believe that the Minister quoted Mr Hammond saying that there are occasions when elected representatives get things wrong. That is true. Although noble Lords are not elected, central government are through the ballot box. The executive is comprised of elected representatives.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, rightly mentioned freedoms and flexibilities, but they are set out elsewhere in the Bill. They are not in the part that we are discussing. Freedoms do, indeed, carry risks. Both parties in opposition are saying that in recognising that, one should also recognise that local authorities should be allowed to take risks because that is the way that they grow, develop and provide the best service. I am sorry that we shall not have an opportunity to pursue the matter but I accept that it is a matter of financial privilege.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not think that there is anything for me to say if the noble Baroness intends to capitulate. However, in due course, I invite her to read in Hansard the debate on Amendments Nos. 3A and 6A and tell me tomorrow what the difference is.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, this is not a capitulation. I understand that we are constrained by the procedures of both Houses. If I was told that this was not a privilege matter, I would divide the House on it. I have been told that we cannot divide on the matter. However, if that is not the case—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I used the same form of words in the previous debate with regard to the Commons taking a privilege view on Amendment No. 3A. I was ignored and this House has just voted against what the Commons wanted. We are in exactly the same situation with the amendment that we are now discussing. As I say, I invite the noble Baroness to read the debate on Amendments Nos. 3A and 6A in Hansard and tell us tomorrow why she took a certain view on one amendment and not on another when the reasons were exactly the same.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I shall take the Minister's advice. For the moment I shall take the matter no further except to make two small points. I noted the bonfire of controls which the Minister keeps talking about. However, I believe that it will be a damp squib, not a bonfire of controls.
	I want to draw attention to the fact that, from the outset, the Minister has threatened us over Part 4—oh yes—and in particular that, if we did not conform and caused him too much trouble, the whole part would be withdrawn and fall because he did not want to lose the Bill. I have heard that and what he said today on exactly the same point about Royal Assent. None the less, he does it with such charm and such a smile that, for today's purposes, I shall not press the matter to a Division.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

19page 32, line 15, leave out "be the same as or different from" and insert "subject to subsection (10A) below, be less than, but not greater than"
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	19A Because it would alter the area of taxation, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 19 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 19A.
	Amendment No. 19 effectively rules out the possibility of transitional schemes which have an element of downwards phasing. The Government cannot accept that we rule out the possibility of downwards transition as a method of funding any transitional scheme. However, I understand the concerns that inspired the amendment and I want to address them in the points that I shall make, which also apply to the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 19.
	Amendment No. 20 allows any transitional scheme to be revenue neutral over the five-year life of the rating list rather than confining it to revenue neutrality in each year. The amendment was introduced in this House at Third Reading. The Government have accepted the principle, as I hope is understood, but in Amendments Nos. 20A, 20B and the consequential amendments we have improved the drafting while accepting the principle. The new drafting provides a power for the general taxpayer to be recompensed for, in effect, loaning ratepayers money in the first few years of a five-yearly self-financing transitional scheme.
	Clause 66 fulfils the White Paper commitment to ensure that there will always be a transitional scheme as a result of revaluation of non-domestic properties every five years. Transitional schemes were used at previous revaluations to allow ratepayers time to adjust to changes in their bills, with both significant increases and decreases resulting from changes in rateable values being phased in by annual stages. However, there is currently no legal obligation on the Government to have such schemes. The White Paper commitment was that, in future, a transitional scheme must always be established at a revaluation. That guarantee requires that future schemes be entirely self-financing.
	Two methods are likely to be used to achieve revenue neutrality. First, a transitional scheme could phase in both increases and decreases in rates over time, balancing the rates lost against the rates gained. Secondly, the rates lost could be made good through a supplement on rate bills generally. That is achieved by increasing the multiplier, which ensures that the total revenue remains the same.
	The rating professional bodies—the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation and the Rating Surveyors Association—have consistently argued that the Government have tied our hands by limiting any scheme to be revenue neutral in each year. They suggest that we should keep open the option of devising a scheme that is revenue neutral over the full five years of the life of the rating list.
	A scheme which aims for revenue neutrality over five years allows more options to be considered for the way in which any transitional arrangements might be structured. However, it introduces greater complications in calculating how any shortfall in revenue might be covered in any single year. If we used the flexibility of five-year revenue neutrality to devise a scheme that benefited those in downward transition, that would require, in effect, a loan from the Exchequer in the early years to be made up in the later years of the scheme. Government Amendment No. 20A makes it clear that the Secretary of State has a power to recoup that cost to the public purse in latter years.
	By introducing the amendment, we leave open the possibility of devising a scheme that benefits those properties that have reduced in value. Everyone recognises that we cannot decide on any scheme until we have the data on the new valuations. We now accept that we should consider the mechanism of spreading the revenue neutrality over the five years when we draw up the options for any transitional scheme for 2005 and subsequent revaluation years.
	Revenue neutrality in each year has the advantage that we could announce any scheme early in the process, therefore giving assurance to ratepayers. Revenue neutrality over five years requires the agreement of the Exchequer, so it will be more difficult to provide guarantees to ratepayers early in the process. However, we are prepared to keep all those options open.
	I shall turn to the second issue raised in the amendments approved in this House and overturned in the other place. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the other rating organisations have argued that downward transition is unfair to ratepayers. It is often in areas in economic decline, where property and rental values have dropped relative to those in the rest of the country. Let me reassure the House that the Government well understand the arguments here.
	However, if we are to ease the tax burden on those whose property values have risen sharply as a result of revaluation, as we all agree that we should, we have to seek the best way of funding that relief. We are not prepared to rule out any downward transition, for the same reasons that the amendment we have tabled does not rule out revenue neutrality over five years, or in fact year by year. I can provide reassurance, however, that the issue will not be forgotten as we devise the transitional schemes for 2005 to 2010.
	The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is in the process of commissioning a research project to model different options for the 2005 transitional arrangements. The project is in three phases. In the first phase, we will consider a wide number of options and the likely beneficiaries and costs of each option based on assumed new valuations. The findings for that should be available in January 2004. In the second phase, we will narrow down the options in consultation with the stakeholders—businesses, in particular the CBI, the British Retail Consortium and other relevant bodies, and the rating professionals. We will then model the agreed options using new valuations that we have at that stage. The results of that phase should be available by late March 2004. In the third phase, we will finalise our preferred option and model it using final valuations produced by the Valuation Office Agency. That report is due in June 2004.
	That project will be monitored by a project group including representatives from the professional bodies and business interests. I assure the House that the issue of downward phasing will be very much on the agenda. We will consider models which include options for immediate or quicker downward phasing. We will not rule out any possibilities at this stage. We need to conduct the research based on the actual data available from the Valuation Office Agency next year. We will make decisions based on the data and the discussions that emerge from that project. We will develop the scheme with key stakeholders including representatives from the rating professional bodies.
	Finally, let me make it clear that the regulations which will set the form of the transitional scheme will be based on the report from the research project and will be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the matter further when we have the relevant information. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 19 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 19A.—(Lord Rooker.)

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has said. As your Lordships will know, the matter was not debated by the democratic other place when it was due to consider our amendments. It was simply voted on and that was the end of the matter, so his statement is very helpful and good to have on record.
	I am disappointed that the Government have seen fit not to accept Amendment No. 19. I was grateful for what the Minister said about the new research project. Will that project take into account the work already done by the RICS in preparation for the Bill and for which I argued at all the previous stages, particularly at Third Reading?
	I was pleased that the Minister seems to have shifted his position considerably on downward transition. He now seems to have a greater understanding of the detrimental effect that downward transition has had on businesses and of the persecution they feel by not receiving the full relief to which they are entitled. That in itself is a major step forward, but I should like to press the Minister more on his views on how quickly the Government think that they will be able to end downward transition. Having completed the review for 2005–10, does he think that downward transition will be needed again in 2010–15?
	Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that downward transition is a method by which businesses that are entitled to relief from rates do not receive it. The money is withheld from them. They are the small and medium-sized enterprises that are in most need of that relief.
	On Amendments Nos. 20 and 20A to 20F, I am grateful to the Minister for the movement in his position and the influence that he has had. He has often stood up before your Lordships and said, "Well, I am just speaking on behalf of the Government. I have to report back". We all know that he has a great deal more clout than that and I am grateful that he has listened to the arguments and used his undoubted influence to persuade his fellow Ministers to change their mind. That is one of the jobs of a Lords Minister and I am grateful to him.
	I am not at all surprised that the drafting has been changed. That is also one of the jobs of the Government. It is our job to agree on the principle and leave the government draftsman to get the amendment right. So a big thank you to the Minister for accepting Amendment No. 20.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I have supported the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on this issue throughout the passage of the Bill. Like him, I welcome what the Minister has said to us today. It will be helpful particularly to small businesses. As the noble Earl said, the Minister clearly has some influence in his department and has managed to persuade colleagues that perhaps there was a better way, although without securing any more money. He was obviously unable to persuade the Treasury to allocate any more money. It will be beneficial particularly for small businesses. We must always remember that all our big businesses were once small businesses. They are the seed corn of our economy. It is right that the Minister changed his mind and was able to persuade others to change theirs on the way the Bill is enacted. We look forward to seeing what emerges.
	Noble Lords may like to know that the relevant section of the Bill contained incredibly complicated formulas. I do not pretend to understand them. Fortunately, the principles were explained and the Minister has accepted our arguments. We are content with the current position and look forward to what follows.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I seek no personal credit for the change in position. It is due to my right honourable friend Nick Raynsford and the Deputy Prime Minister. They are the listening Ministers. We are the listening Government. However, when I go back to my colleagues later today, I shall tell them not to listen to your Lordships' House regarding the first vote that we had. I make that absolutely clear. If I do return with any amendments tomorrow, it will be because I have not been listened to.
	With all due respect to the noble Earl—and I appreciate the positive contributions that he has made throughout our debates on this part of the Bill—I did utter one sentence:
	"We will not rule out any possibilities at this stage".
	I cannot say anything. I have explained the research project, which will soon start. It is September now and it will start in January. It will happen very quickly next year and we will no doubt report back as appropriate. The research will not take place behind closed doors. Business and the professions will be involved and we will try to take a positive view of what conclusions are reached and table a package of amendments. Therefore, I hope that we can dispense with our discussion in a spirit of co-operation, which has been sadly lacking in the first part of our deliberations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

20page 32, line 39, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
	"( ) In making regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall have regard to the object of securing (so far as practicable) that the aggregate amount payable to him and all billing authorities by way of non-domestic rates as regards a relevant period is the same as the aggregate amount which would be so payable apart from the regulations.
	(10A) For the purposes of subsection (10) above, the Secretary of State shall estimate the difference between—
	(a) the aggregate amount which would apart from the regulations, all billing authorities by way of non-domestic rates as regards a relevant period, and
	(b) the aggregate amount which will be payable having regard to rules prescribed under subsection (4) above,
	and any shortfall in aggregate amount shall be recovered by applying a surcharge of the non-domestic rating multiplier for each relevant financial year."
	The Commons agree to this Amendment, with the following Amendments—
	20A Line 5, leave out "relevant period is" and insert "particular relevant period is, after disregarding any adjustments made to take account of amounts being payable at times other than those at which they would have been payable apart from the regulations,"
	20B Line 7, leave out from beginning to end of the Lords Amendment.
	The Commons have made the following consequential Amendments to the Bill—
	20Cpage 32, line 46, after "amounts" insert "and adjustments"
	20Dpage 33, line 1, leave out "for a particular financial year" and insert "and adjustments for a particular relevant period"
	20Epage 33, line 3, leave out "later financial year which" and insert "financial year which begins after the coming into force of the amending regulations and"
	20F Page 33, line 5, leave out "differ from his estimate of those amounts" and insert "and adjustments differ from his estimate of those amounts and adjustments"

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20A and 20B, as amendments to Lords Amendment No.20, and Amendments Nos. 20C to 20F.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20A and 20B, as amendments to Lords Amendment No. 20, and Amendments Nos. 20C to 20F.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Bill returned to the Commons with an amendment.

Business of the House: State Opening of Parliament

Opening of Parliament

Lord Grocott: My Lords, before the Statement of my noble friend, perhaps I may confirm what has been widespread knowledge throughout the House for some time about the date of the State Opening this year. Downing Street announced this afternoon that the State Opening of Parliament this year will take place on Wednesday 26th November.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord for confirming the rumours that have been circulating for a little while. It is a late State Opening in historical terms, but an early announcement, which is welcome. However, it leaves the Government with a tight timescale. We still have nine government Bills before the House, although two are at the ping-pong stage—we were just discussing one of them. Two have not yet reached Committee. Therefore, there is a lot of work to get through. If the Government are to achieve the State Opening by the date stated, they will need to be responsive to your Lordships' House in considering the issues, as indeed they sometimes are. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, described the Government as a listening Government and they certainly need to be.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I can do no better. I never try to outdo my noble friend Lord Rooker in the language department. I simply confirm what he said and what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, requested.

WTO Ministerial Conference

Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the Fifth World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference in Cancun, from 10th–14th September, which I attended together with my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs. Commissioners Lamy and Fischler negotiated on behalf of the EU.
	"The UK delegation included my honourable friend the Member for Putney, representing the Select Committee on International Development, as well as representatives of the CBI, the TUC, the Consumers' Association and the UK Trade Network. I warmly welcome their participation and thank them for their work.
	"The conference was attended by delegates from all 146 members of the World Trade Organisation, accompanied by many thousands of parliamentarians and civil society organisations as observers. On the opening day, we welcomed the accession of Cambodia and Nepal.
	"The British delegation worked hard to help secure an outcome that would meet the needs of developing countries. Ministerial colleagues and I met a large number of representatives from those countries, and we ensured that their views were reflected when we met with the US, EU colleagues and others.
	"The conference was the WTO's opportunity to restore momentum to the Doha development round that was launched with such high hopes in November 2001. It is with great regret that I must report that we were unable to reach an agreement. Talks broke down on the final day.
	"Before the talks ended, however, Commissioner Lamy, on behalf of the European Union, offered to abandon completely negotiations on two of the so-called 'Singapore issues'—investment and competition. That position was fully supported by the British Government.
	"Many other WTO members also signalled a willingness to be flexible on various issues. With more time, I believe it would have been possible to reach agreement. Failure to agree at Cancun is a serious setback for the Doha round. But it is not the end of the round for the WTO itself.
	"In anticipation of Cancun, we had already reached agreement—overdue but none the less welcome—on access to medicines for developing countries. That agreement stands. It must now be built on, particularly through the global funds to fight AIDS, TB and malaria. "And in June, the Agriculture Council of the EU agreed significant reforms of the common agricultural policy—reforms that will mean substantial cuts in the trade distorting support and export subsidies which we give to our own farmers and which do so much damage to the farmers of the developing world. The EU has also already offered in principle to phase out export subsidies on products of particular interest to developing countries. The agreement on CAP reform was not conditional upon agreement at Cancun.
	"We saw at Cancun the formation of the G21 and other strengthened developing country groupings. I wholeheartedly welcome the emergence of this stronger voice for poorer nations. Indeed, this Government have led the way in helping developing countries to build their negotiating capacity. We have given £110 million to trade-related capacity building and technical assistance since 1998, and an additional £50 million was announced last week by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development.
	"Furthermore, at Cancun itself, we made real progress in discussions on agricultural and other vital issues. There is no doubt that we were closer to agreement at the end of the Cancun conference than we were at the beginning. "We now need to lift our sights once more to the prize that is on offer, particularly for developing countries, if we can get the round back on track. The Cancun conference agreed a new deadline of 15th December to try to resolve the issues that we could not sort out at Cancun. We in the United Kingdom will engage fully to try to make this a reality. I have already spoken to the Director-General of the WTO, Dr Supachai, about how we in the UK can drive this forward.
	"The final ministerial statement urged that renewed discussions be based on the concessions delegates offered at Cancun and not on their earlier positions. In the case of the EU, this means we should accept that, despite our continuing commitment to encourage and facilitate direct investment in developing countries, WTO agreements on investment and competition are off the EU's agenda.
	"The IMF and the World Bank also announced in Cancun a new initiative to help developing countries to overcome problems in adjusting to a more liberal trading environment. I warmly welcome this. The UK Government will make a substantial input to the design and implementation of that initiative.
	"In the wake of Cancun, I am afraid it is inevitable that more emphasis will be put on regional and bilateral trade agreements. Although these could help to promote South/South as well as North/South trade, they risk excluding many poorer countries and leaving others isolated in negotiations with far larger countries. We continue to believe that the multilateral system should be the cornerstone of world trade rules.
	"All WTO members now need to reflect on the lessons to be learned from Cancun and to find ways of improving processes. We also have to find ways of addressing the issues of substance that prevented agreement at Cancun. We shall be discussing how best to make progress on all those issues with our EU partners, the European Commission and others, taking into account particularly the views of developing countries.
	"The UK Government are determined to do all they can to help to deliver a development round in line with the promises we made at Doha. All countries stand to gain, but the poorest stand to gain the most. That is why we support the round and why we will continue to work for its success".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, for repeating the Statement on what the press have referred to as the "farce and failure" of the Cancun trade talks.
	The walkout of the G21 is a stark contrast to the excitement and genuine hope which characterised the beginning of the Doha trade round in November 2001. It is sad that the atmosphere of scepticism surrounding the talks, following the lack of progress, numerous missed opportunities and collapsed deadlines running up to September, culminated in the breakdown last Sunday night.
	That major setback in negotiations postponed the implementation of the Doha Development Agenda. It may not be the "end of the round", as the Secretary of State said, but it makes the January 2005 deadline defunct. The collapse will damage business confidence. A fear already expressed by officials in Geneva is that momentum will move away from a multilateral agreement on trade to bilateral agreements and projects, such as the US's Free Trade Area of the Americas, thus sapping what little energy is left for Doha. Can the Secretary of State please outline what Her Majesty's Government are planning to do to try to rectify this impasse on trade and explain what will be our "substantial input", which she mentioned, into the joint IMF and World Bank initiative?
	With elections due next year in India, the US and France—three key members of the WTO—it is vital that we restart talks as soon as possible. The current situation means that everyone is losing out. All countries—developed and developing—need to be prepared to compromise more. We recognise that the two Singapore issues—investment and competition—were the flashpoint at the conference. We cannot let that hide our own intransigence over agriculture. That continues to be one of the major stumbling blocks to progress so far.
	The US and the EU have failed adequately to reform their agricultural regimes. The European Union CAP reforms made in August, although in the right direction, were less impressive than Her Majesty's Government would have us believe, and they fall far short of the radical changes needed to improve the lot of poor countries. We accept that farmers need support, but not subsidies that distort trade.
	One major criticism of the negotiations is that the rich members are over-represented, leaving poor countries little voice. In May, Conservative Members in another place made suggestions for an advocacy fund, which developing countries could use to provide themselves with quality legal and economic advice on trade issues. Developed countries would contribute to the fund, thus keeping the cost to individual countries to a minimum, while at the same time ensuring that poorer countries had the means to select the advocates they needed to negotiate on their behalf. Her Majesty's Government have said that they are committed to,
	"an agreement that works for developing countries".
	The advocacy fund is surely one example of a programme that would benefit poorer countries.
	Last week, DfID announced a £50 million allocation to help to integrate trade into their plans to reduce poverty. While that £50 million is an obvious reflection of our proposal for an advocacy fund, it falls far short of any trade capacity-building initiative.
	The failure of Cancun has damaged the credibility of the WTO, but can the Secretary of State reassure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to support this organisation while also pressing for the recommendations that the WTO should become,
	"more transparent and facilitate full participation by developing countries"?
	The WTO is arguably more democratic than some other international organisations. It is one of the few international organisations in which poorer countries form a majority, and it proceeds via consensus rather than voting.
	The breakdown of trade talks also raises other problems. Recent trade disputes put on hold under the "peace clause" negotiated during the Uruguay round will expire on 31st December 2003. If the Doha round remains stalled, big exporters such as Brazil may resort to litigation. Can the Secretary of State inform the House what plans there are to extend the deadline and how Her Majesty's Government plan to address the consequences of its expiry? There is also the issue of several simmering disputes between the EU and the US, which could boil up again, for example the foreign sales corporation tax.
	In sum, let us not lose sight of the importance of these issues. The World Bank estimates that eliminating all barriers to trade would generate between 250 and 520 billion dollars extra in global income. Up to half of that would go to developing countries. That could lift over 144 million people out of poverty by 2015. The time for rhetoric and missed opportunities is over. We must be prepared to be bold and make the first move in restoring the political impetus into these critical issues relating to multilateral trade.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, thank the Secretary of State for repeating the Statement made today in the other place. On these Benches we share the deep disappointment that the talks ended in failure. Despite the anti-capitalist celebrations, the real losers in this are the poorest countries. Indeed, there is now a real danger of trade conflict and bilateral agreements, which are likely to benefit stronger rather than weaker countries.
	As we have heard, there are some positive developments from Cancun. The new grouping there of developing countries is very welcome. However, is the Minister concerned that many of those in the G21 were stronger developing nations, such as China and India? Might the poorest countries again be squeezed out?
	Comments afterwards seemed almost to blame the Mexican chairman of the last session. Patricia Hewitt and Caroline Spelman of the Conservative Party, both speaking on the "Today" programme on Monday morning, seemed very taken aback. Mrs Hewitt stated that there was a deal to be done and that they had been close to achieving that. She reiterated in the other place today that a deal might have been achieved with another six to eight hours of talks.
	Does the Minister agree that we need to look wider for the reasons for failure and that perhaps it should not have been such a surprise? Every deadline set in the Doha round has been missed. Did the fact that the agreement in the EU on farm subsidies was not reached until June, long past its deadline, play a part? Above all, can she comment on why the so-called Singapore issues were introduced; issues which the developing countries were simply not prepared to discuss while agricultural subsidies had not been settled? Surely, the developing countries made it very plain before Cancun that no new issue should be added to what was already a difficult enough agenda. What part did the UK Government play either in allowing that or in seeking to prevent it? Having raised them, why were these issues not withdrawn from the agenda at an earlier stage? However, I welcome the Government's commitment that they should not be reintroduced in December.
	When discussing the EU proposals back in June, the Minister stated that those were an opening position for Cancun and that she expected the EU to concede more. Does she not think that that was a risky position for the British Government to be in, relying on a developing world to put pressure on our EU partners? Was British influence over our French and German partners on these matters weakened as a result of differences over Iraq? Has that moved us to the periphery of influence in Europe?
	Yet did our position on Iraq give us any influence at all over the US negotiators, especially, for example, over their position on their cotton industry? Is she concerned that the US negotiator has now said that the US will be encouraged to look at bilateral rather than multilateral deals? I note that the Wall Street Journal has urged the US Government down that line.
	We have to move forward and I welcome the commitment that the Government made to get the talks back on track. Can the Minister tell the House more about the meeting in December and the part that our Ministers, as opposed to our officials, may play in that? It seems as if there has been a seismic shift of power within the WTO. Whatever their flaws, it has to be through international institutions such as the WTO that progress is to be made if weaker countries are not to lose out to stronger ones. I therefore welcome the Government's commitment to that, even though we failed to get our negotiating group to present acceptable proposals to this conference.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Rawlings and Lady Northover, for their comments. I shall try to address the comments and questions raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about the January 2005 deadline. It is very difficult to believe that we shall now meet that deadline. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, stated, we have missed just about every deadline in this round. Looking back, previous trade rounds took much longer than anticipated. This was a very ambitious round. We want that which was unanimously agreed at Doha to be achieved because of the impact it will have on the poorest countries in the world and we are ready to fight to secure that.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked what would happen at the December meeting. The communique states that there will be a meeting at official level. We shall push to ensure that the political elements are clear in terms of what we want to achieve. Given our failure to achieve that in Cancun when we had Ministers present representing the majority of countries in the WTO, it is difficult to speculate now where we will be in December. It is still early days.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked what we are planning to do next. The talks broke down only on Sunday. My right honourable friend returned yesterday from Cancun, although I returned earlier. We are currently in discussions on how best to take forward this process. The IMF/World Bank initiative is one of the options we are considering in terms of influencing the way forward. The initiative will consider issues such as preference erosion, the loss of revenue to developing countries due to tariff reduction, financial assistance, and looking at trade issues as part of a development programme, linking in to the priorities of developing countries.
	When in Cancun I spoke to the trade Minister for Malawi and was struck when he said that because of an IMF monitored programme, Malawi was forced to open its markets too quickly. That resulted in an excess of cheap imports and it cannot access developed country markets. One of the things we want to do is to ensure that the IMF/World Bank initiative is sequenced and takes on board the very difficult decisions that developing countries have to make with respect to opening up their markets.
	The advocacy fund was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and has been raised many times in the other place. It would be enormously helpful if the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and her honourable friend in the other place, Caroline Spelman, were to look at what we have done. Since 1998 we have put some £110 million into a range of initiatives to help developing countries. I announced an additional £50 million last week.
	The noble Baroness, in talking about an advocacy fund, talked about the importance of developing countries having access to legal opinion. We have given £1.25 million to the Advisory Centre on WTO Law. It is an independent Geneva-based centre, which assists developing and least developed countries by providing free or low-cost legal support to members pursuing cases in the dispute/settlement mechanism. We funded the South Centre. We funded a Trade and Investment Access Facility. We have given £7.5 million for the Africa Trade and Poverty Programme. Far from us following the opposition, the opposition is following us.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about the WTO becoming more transparent and facilitating discussion. In conversations with developing country Ministers, I was very struck by the fact that they all felt the process was more transparent and open, but they remained cynical about that process leading to the outcomes they would wish to see. The next stage needs to be developing countries having a stronger voice and the opportunity to contribute, but with that robust process of dialogue and discussion leading to an outcome that actually takes on board the needs of developing countries.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that the real losers are the poorest nations. There were differences between developing countries. The noble Baroness referred to China and India and whether the poorest would feel squeezed out. There was the beginning of that kind of feeling at Cancun. Indeed, different developing countries formed different groups. So one had the G21 focusing very much on agriculture and another group, which were the poorer developing countries, with a little bit of overlap, looking at special and differential treatment and the special safeguard mechanism. They were particularly concerned about impacts on the poorest countries.
	I agree with the noble Baroness that there is a range of reasons for the failure of these talks. It is not just one thing; the situation is complex and complicated. It is a pity that—although we were closer to agreement when we finished than when we started—many countries spent the first two days re-rehearsing arguments they had already put in the run-up to Cancun. So we needed slightly more time at the end of the process.
	On the Singapore issues, in 1998 the European Union was considering what new agreements might help the benefits of trade to spread more widely within developing country economies. So there was a negotiating mandate to propose agreements on investment and competition. Noble Lords will know that the Government's position, which was stated publicly by myself and by my right honourable friend Patricia Hewitt, is that these issues were not a priority for the British Government. However, clearly we were negotiating as part of the European Union. We worked to persuade our colleagues on the best kind of negotiating tactics to use. But, at the end of the day, we agreed a negotiating mandate as part of the European Union and we stuck by that mandate.
	I think that I have addressed all the issues and questions raised.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, can the Secretary of State help: is it correct, as reported in the press, that great resentment was expressed by representatives of developing countries at the failure to reform the CAP, which they rightly said ruins Third World farmers through the subsidised dumping of farm produce? Is it correct that the promised reform will do little to change the problem that now exists, which was one factor that led to the breakdown of this meeting?
	Should not the Government be impressing on European colleagues the vast importance of sorting out this problem, which is far more important than the construction of a new European constitution? Can the Minister tell us what these promised changes to CAP will amount to? What evidence is there to suggest that they will meet the concerns of Third World countries and stop this subsidised dumping of farm produce, which is ruining their own farmers?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that we were at the forefront of the discussions with the European Union which led to the CAP reform deal. The big element of that deal was the breaking of the link between production and subsidies. I am happy to write to the noble Lord giving some of the more technical details of the agreement.
	Noble Lords will know that, in discussions on CAP reform, we wanted to go much further. But, obviously, there are very different interests within the context of the European Union. We thought that, given those differences, the CAP reform deal was historic. Despite the disappointment expressed by some developing countries that the CAP reform deal had not gone further, I do not think that that led to the breakdown of the talks. In fact, we were closer to some form of agreement on agriculture than on any other issue. It was on the new issues—the Singapore issues—that the talks fell down. There was a general feeling that—there not being agreement on the Singapore issues, despite the movement by Pascal Lamy—moving on to talk about agriculture would not take us much further. That was not necessarily our reading of the situation. Unfortunately the talks failed.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I have not had the opportunity to congratulate my noble friend on her elevation to the Cabinet. I do so now. I am delighted with that promotion. I am less than delighted, not just about what came out of Cancun but with the policies of the European Union and, indeed, the United States—where we have no responsibilities of course. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I am extremely concerned about European Union policies on agriculture.
	I do not know whether my noble friend—she has been rather busy of late—has had an opportunity to read the unanimous all-party report on globalisation of the Economic Affairs Committee, which made it clear that globalisation has not been the cause of trouble in the poorest parts of sub-Saharan Africa; much of it is due to the corruption and civil wars that have taken place in those areas. On the other hand, while I appreciate the increase in aid that the Government have provided, it is a drop in the ocean in comparison with the damage that the common agricultural policy does to those poorest developing countries. Does my noble friend agree with that?
	Does my noble friend agree that if there is to be any hope whatever of real help for countries such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, which suffer so much from the effects of the common agricultural policy, the UK Government will need to take measures to try to convince the European Union to change those policies?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is really important that we recognise what the CAP reform deal delivered earlier this year. We also need to recognise that it is part of a process of continuing reform. EU export subsidies have fallen by some 70 per cent in the past 10 years. The Government recognise that there is still some way to go. However, let us not rubbish where we have got to, because the split between production and subsidy is a very important step on agriculture. More CAP regimes are up for reform this autumn, including cotton, which was a big issue in our discussions at Cancun. Next year, we shall consider sugar, which continues to be an extraordinarily difficult matter.
	I agree with my noble friend: we need to work to convince our EU partners to move further. I also agree that the volume of aid to developing countries will not deliver the kind of change in sustainable development that we want. That must come from economic growth. To meet the millennium development goals, developing countries will have to average growth rates of about 7 per cent. In sub-Saharan Africa, they are averaging only 3 per cent, so there is a huge gap to be met. We are attempting to increase aid resources through the international financing facility on which my right honourable friend the Chancellor is working, but giving developing countries access to trade and growth is the key to development.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords—

Lord Biffen: My Lords—

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, there is plenty of time for everyone to speak.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, despite its dismal contents. I listened carefully when she answered the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who pressed her on the EU position. It is abundantly clear to all of us that there was a strong difference between our position and that of the European Union. The Secretary of State's answer confirmed that.
	Does she agree that, as so many non-governmental organisations are saying, the developing countries viewed the Singapore issues as a form of Trojan horse to bring back the much-hated multilateral agreement on investment, which, as she said, we rejected so many years ago? Did they not fear that that would return all over again? Can she also elaborate on why the European Union had not discarded that negotiating position? Is she absolutely certain that it has now discarded it, or will it return in another form?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, it is important for noble Lords to recognise that European Union countries agree a negotiating position and a mandate. We stand absolutely behind that mandate. Having said that, my right honourable friend Patricia Hewitt and I have made clear that we did not view the new issues—the Singapore issues—as a development priority.
	The concerns of developing countries crossed the spectrum. Some were concerned not to negotiate on new issues because they simply felt that they did not have the capacity to do so. Others were concerned about the impact on their economies. I have a personal view on investment. From talking to businesses about the need for greater foreign direct investment in Africa, it is absolutely clear that one thing that would help would be such an investment agreement.
	That is a personal view that I have expressed to Ministers of developing countries, but I have also made it clear to them that their view of the subjects on which they feel able to negotiate at any particular time should prevail in the WTO. Given that the WTO is a "one member, one vote" organisation and that we cannot discuss issues unless all are agreed, we reached the situation that we did in Cancun.
	However, there was by no means unanimous agreement across all developing countries. Some of the middle-income developing countries, as it were, argued that all those issues should be on the table. African countries were saying that all of them should be off the table. The European Union said that we were quite happy to withdraw on competition and investment, and that our starting point for the next round of negotiations assumed that.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, when Mrs Beckett returned from the CAP negotiations, she said that the results would put us in a good position for the forthcoming WTO round. In retrospect, does the noble Baroness feel that she was over-optimistic, badly advised or simply misjudged the situation?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, none of those. The CAP reform proposals put us in a much better position to move forward on agriculture. As I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, we felt close to a deal on agriculture at Cancun, if we had had a bit more time. That would have made a substantial difference, especially to the poorest countries in the world. So I do not believe that my right honourable friend was being over-optimistic. When I left Cancun on Friday—the talks broke down on Sunday—the discussions were robust but there was then no feeling that the talks would collapse. There was still a feeling that, although there were differences, we could reach a deal.

Lord Biffen: My Lords—

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords—

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we have not heard from the Labour Benches.

Noble Lords: Yes, we have.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I apologise.

Lord Biffen: My Lords, with characteristic courtesy, the noble Baroness has put the whole agony of Cancun before the House and, understandably, said that she regretted its failure. But was she surprised? The World Trade Organisation seems to be the most ill-constructed body for decision-taking. The very size of it is a challenge. The dubious principle of "one nation, one vote" and the proliferation of non-governmental organisations make it an enormous gathering that cannot come to decisions.
	We are now told that it was touch and go whether it did a deal on agriculture. If it had, would that deal in any sense be rooted in the real world? How can a whole group of itinerant politicians and their advisers sitting there really get down to carve up the global market in supply of and demand for agricultural products? That is unfeasible even in the context of the European Union trying to make its own painful arrangements in agriculture, which are modest in ambition compared with those of the WTO.
	I ask one specific question to bring the issue of agriculture into greater reality. What decisions have been taken in the assessments of agriculture about the use of genetically modified crops? Is it accepted that they may have an enormous impact on the balance of supply and demand not only of agriculture but of many social problems related to it? Are decisions taken at Cancun or in the WTO automatically transferred to each national situation? Is it suggested that decisions in that forum will authorise what may or may not be done about genetically modified products in this country? Or is it accepted that that is a matter of such sensitivity that it properly belongs to this Parliament?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, the issue of genetically modified organisms is not on the agenda of the WTO round. I am happy to write to the noble Lord about some of the research that the department has been doing, which has been considering agricultural productivity and ways to enhance products in developing countries—for example, by the addition of vitamin E to help with health outcomes.
	In response to the noble Lord's first question, I was surprised at the failure. Although there were robust discussions and very clear disagreements in Cancun, there was a feeling that a deal could be done. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were very surprised at the speed of the collapse of the talks. South Africa and India both expressed surprise and regret to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry later on Sunday, after the talks had collapsed.
	I agree with the noble Lord that the WTO represents a challenge, but it also represents the best possible opportunity for the poorest developing countries, which do not have the capacity to negotiate bilateral—or, even if they come together, regional—trade agreements with some of the bigger countries.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the common agricultural policy is compulsory expenditure in terms of the European Union budget and is therefore subject to great influence by single member states, as we witnessed in the discussion between the Prime Minister and M. Chirac after a recent European Council meeting? Does not the disproportionate influence of a single country on agriculture make it extremely difficult to get a mandate from the European Union that represents anything other than the lowest common factor, when we ought to be looking for the highest common denominator in agricultural reform?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, with respect to the EU mandate at Cancun, I do not think that we had the lowest common factor. There may not have been the maximalist approach that we in the United Kingdom would have liked to see. However, as a result of the CAP reform deal that we managed to do in June—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs played a very big part in that—the mandate may not have been as good as it was. I repeat what I said previously: a deal on agriculture was there to be done.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the statement she made a few minutes ago—that the recent deal on the CAP reform was historic—is slightly exaggerated? The link between production and subsidy has not been broken for many commodities. The cost of producing sugar in Europe is three to four times that in the developing world, yet M. Chirac has ensured that the subsidy continues for the next three to four years. Will the Minister explain how the protection of French sugar beet farmers helps the Third World?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not think that protection of specific products in the European Union helps developing countries. That is why it is so important that this is part of a process, and that we will be looking at cotton later this year and at sugar next year.
	I draw noble Lords' attention to the fact that the European Commission has made it absolutely clear to developing countries that we are prepared to look at any specific products—where we have high tariffs, for example, which they feel restricts their development. There is frustration that developing countries have not come back to the Commission with a list of products. We are in the process of trying to ensure that developing countries understand what that means, because it is a great opportunity.

Anti-social Behaviour Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Countess of Mar) in the Chair.]
	Clause 19 [Parenting contracts in cases of exclusion from school or truancy]:

Lord Hylton: moved Amendment No. 84:
	Page 17, line 36, after "parent" insert "or both parents"

Lord Hylton: In moving Amendment No. 84, I shall speak also to 10 amendments in the same group, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Northbourne. He apologises for not having been in his place, through inadvertence, to move Amendment No. 75 last week and for being overseas this week.
	The whole group of amendments attempts to clarify the Government's intentions about the meaning of the two words "a parent" in this part of the Bill. It also seeks to make the Bill clearer and easier for ordinary people to understand. It is difficult for a non-lawyer to understand that "a parent" can, and does, include both parents. It is ordinary people whose lives will be affected by the Bill. It therefore needs to be comprehensible to them, as well as to the practitioners who will have to administer it, and who may not have legal training.
	Amendment No. 84 and the other amendments in the group, except Amendments Nos. 108 and 144, are designed to make clear beyond doubt that this part of the Bill should apply, not only to one parent acting alone, but to two or more persons acting together, if each falls into one of the categories of persons who qualify as parents for the purposes of this part of the Bill. It is particularly important to avoid any misunderstanding on that point because, where two parents are available, it is often the case that both working together can be more effective in helping the child than either working alone.
	Amendment No. 144 attempts to define the categories of person who may qualify as "a parent" for the purposes of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, has written to my noble friend Lord Northbourne a most helpful letter, for which he asked me to express his thanks. It indicates that, for the purposes of the Bill, the definition of "parent" will be the same as in the Education Act 1996, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Family Law Act 1987. However, the definition of "parent" in those three Acts is not exactly the same. Am I correct in assuming that the Government's intention is that any class of person mentioned in those Acts will qualify as "a parent" for the purposes of the Bill?
	Amendment No. 144 as drafted is intended to be probing. It includes some classes of person to test whether the Government intend to include them or not. My noble friend who drafted the amendment is particularly interested in the status, in this matter, of stepfathers and stepmothers, and also of persons living in the home of the child as a partner of a parent of the child. In a society that prides itself on having an increasing number of "flexible families", it is important that the Government should make clear what, if any, are the responsibilities of cohabiting partners in families with children.
	Amendment No. 108 addresses the fact that a relatively high proportion of young people who display anti-social behaviour have fathers who are either violent or have left the family home. In cases where practitioners or the court identify that the behaviour of the child's father is contributing to the child's behaviour, it is important that the father should not be able to avoid facing up to the consequences of his actions or omissions simply because he is more difficult to contact than the mother. This amendment encourages the court at least to make the father come to court and listen. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I very much understand and appreciate the sentiments that have just been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, especially those on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who has had a long-standing interest in this issue. I am very sympathetic to the intention behind these amendments and share the noble Lord's concerns about the "dad deficit" about which he spoke so passionately and so well at Second Reading. I should like to provide a strong reassurance that the Government also believe that engaging both parents, where appropriate, is extremely important in improving their child's school attendance or behaviour in or outside school. The relevant clauses of the Bill have been drafted to ensure that that is possible.
	Who is approached and whether one or both parents will be involved depends on an assessment of the child and the child's family circumstances carried out on behalf of either party considering arranging a parenting contract or applying for a parenting order. This assessment should enable practitioners to respond effectively to the particular circumstances of the case. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is quite right in saying that those circumstances can vary materially. Both parents would be involved if there is any benefit. We will consider further whether to make this assessment in guidance. In practice, we expect that LEAs, schools and youth offending teams will focus efforts and resources primarily towards parents who have some involvement with the child and are therefore in a position to influence the child's behaviour.
	When applying for a parenting order under Part 3 of the Bill, the application will name the parent or parents it is asking the court to consider making the subject of a parenting order. Local education authorities and youth offending teams will put a recommendation to the courts based on the assessment of the circumstances. Guidance on the existing Crime and Disorder Act provisions already requires both parents to be considered for an order. Furthermore, courts already have the power to enforce parental attendance in court if they feel it is appropriate.
	As the noble Lord said, engaging fathers can be a real problem, but this is a matter to be dealt with by practitioners who know the individual family circumstances of the children they are supporting. The existing provisions of the Bill are sufficient to ensure the appropriate involvement of both parents. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.
	I reassure him that the definitions and statutes to which he alluded all represent descriptions of what a parent can be, all of which will be captured by our definition of parent. The noble Lord is right: parents now come in many forms and can be birth parents, step parents and, sometimes, partners who are the de facto parent of the child and who may have parental responsibility in relation to the child. All of them, if appropriate, can be captured by the Bill.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I was about to stand up when the Minister stood up and therefore did not get to say that I have some sympathy with the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Northbourne. We are returning to an issue that we have debated before, both in this Bill and others—the legal phraseology that is accepted does not actually cover the common sense meaning. I have some sympathy with the point of view put forward by the noble Lord, Hylton, that it would be quite nice if our legal language followed our common sense language.

Lord Hylton: I am grateful to the Minister for the sympathy that she expressed and I very much welcome what she said about both parents being involved in parenting orders or being called to court. I am also grateful for what she said about the variety of people who find themselves in loco parentis. That was very helpful. I also welcome the guidance that will be forthcoming on these matters. My noble friend and I will study the reply with care, but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 85 to 95 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 96:
	Page 18, line 13, leave out subsection (8)

Lord Dixon-Smith: The purpose of this amendment is to leave out certain words about parenting contracts. The Bill itself states:
	"A parenting contract does not create any obligations in respect of whose breach any liability arises in contract or in tort".
	We want to explore exactly what that might mean. If a parenting contract is not a serious contract and if parents are in breach of their contracts when, to be frank, they are being rather foolish and it might actually cost them, the contract is not worth the paper it is written on. We are dealing with difficult parents who need help. It seems to me that the purpose of a parenting contract is that the education authority, through the school, accepts obligations to assist. The parents accept obligations to take up that assistance and, most important, to get their children to school or improve their behaviour. That has to be a serious contract.
	I accept that a,
	"liability . . . in contract or in tort",
	may well be a financial liability in which one party sues another. It may therefore have very restricted legal meaning: I am not a lawyer.
	I seek assurance from the Minister that these contracts are serious and that the consequences of either side breaching them—even though they may not give rise to a suit for damages—are none the less serious and will have serious implications for either side should there be a failure. It may be that I am revealing my ignorance in pressing this amendment in this way, but it is psychologically important for us to have an explanation on the record for anybody who wants to study the meaning of these contracts. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 109, 112 and 138 and to say a few words about Amendment No. 96 as well.
	My understanding of subsection (8) of Clause 19 is that it specifically seeks to exempt a parent who fails to meet his or her obligations under a parenting contract from any form of legal proceedings; namely, it reinforces the voluntary nature of the parenting contract. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says on that point, because the voluntary nature of that parenting contract is one on which we on these Benches place a great deal of emphasis. We recognise the difference between the voluntary nature of the parenting contracts as distinct from the parenting order that is not voluntary and is imposed through the courts.
	If the Committee will permit it, I shall group Amendment No. 137 with these amendments. It should have been grouped with them, and I missed the fact that it was not. I should have picked that up earlier; I apologise.
	Amendments Nos. 109 and 137 would make the voluntary nature of the parenting contract doubly clear by removing the parent's record under any parenting contract from the consideration of a court that is deciding whether to impose a parenting order, which is compulsory. In that respect, the fact that a parent was asked to sign a voluntary contract and refused to do so should be irrelevant. If it is not, what should be a voluntary contract will be tinged with compulsion. In other words, someone who does not sign will have a parenting order forced on them. The key issue is that the court should approach the question with an open mind. If it does not, we will immediately shift parenting contracts from being purely voluntary to having an element of compulsion. We are concerned about that issue.
	We are also concerned about the potential for interference with the right to respect for family and private life, set out in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The clause engages particularly with the imposition of legally binding sanctions. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has highlighted the matter. It said:
	"in our view, the imposition of requirements on parents under a parenting order would certainly engage the right to respect for private and family life".
	In effect, the Bill makes parenting orders free-standing. The only condition on the court is that it should be satisfied that,
	"making the order would be desirable in the interests of improving the behaviour of the pupil"
	in the case of an LEA application, or that the child has,
	"engaged in criminal conduct or anti-social behaviour, and that making the order would be desirable in the interests of preventing the child or young person from engaging in further criminal conduct or anti-social behaviour".
	There is a significant difference between the granting of a parenting order under existing provisions and granting one under those proposed in the Bill in respect of the fact that the court must make a judgment about the nature of the offence for which the parenting order is made.
	Amendments Nos. 112 and 138 relate to a slightly different issue: the penalties imposed by the court. As I understand it, the current position is that a parenting order can be made under Section 8 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 only in relation to court proceedings in which a child safety order, anti-social behaviour order or sex offender order is made in respect of a child or young person or a child or young person is convicted of an offence or a young person is convicted of an offence under Section 443 of the Education Act 1996. The Bill deletes the connection between the making of the parenting order and a related court process by giving powers to local authorities and youth offending teams to apply directly to magistrates' courts for a parenting order. The only condition on the court is that it should be satisfied that,
	"making the order would be desirable in the interests of improving the behaviour",
	of the child. Clauses 21(3) and 27(3) make it clear that subsections (3) to (7) of Section 9 of the Crime and Disorder Act apply. Subsection (7) stipulates that the penalty can be high as £1,000, which makes a breach a criminal act. We seek to eliminate subsection (7) and leave it at subsections (3) to (6) because we wish to eliminate the element of penalty and ensure that the breach of a parenting order in respect of criminal conduct and anti-social behaviour does not become a criminal offence.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It may be helpful in responding appropriately to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, if I say a word or two about how the two subjects fit together, so that we do not conflate them.
	We envisage a continuum of measures intended to procure the engagement of parents when their children's behaviour causes concern. At one end of the scale, there is a wide range of voluntary involvement that parents have with schools and LEAs. We hope and expect that that will be the most effective approach with the vast majority of parents. At the other end of the scale are parenting orders for parents who refuse to engage and whose children's behaviour is causing the greatest concern. Parenting contracts are designed to sit between the two as a vehicle for engagement that, although voluntary and, hence, with no direct implications for failure to comply, sends a strong signal that action is needed and that more serious consequences are a distinct possibility. With regard to that bridge, it is important to remember that the alternative will sometimes be to go directly to a parenting order without passing through any other stage.
	Amendment No. 96 would make it possible for legal proceedings to be pursued if a parent failed to comply with the requirements of a parenting contract made in the case of exclusion from school or truancy. Introducing legal proceedings would contradict our aim for parenting contracts. A parenting contract is a measure voluntarily entered into and designed to achieve a change in behaviour, in the spirit of co-operation. It is an opportunity for parents to engage with LEAs or schools without direct legal threat and with the minimum bureaucracy. That does not mean that, if there were a failure to take that opportunity, the evidential basis would not be used in proceedings.
	In speaking to Amendment No. 137, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, said that if the contract was voluntary, no reference should be made to it in any court proceedings thereafter. I have two things to say about that. First, the point of having the intermediate step is to make parents understand that a serious change is sought and that there will be consequences, if they agree to enter into the arrangement and do not comply. Conversely, the parents will be able to rely on the fact that they willingly engaged in a contract. If it is their case that any failure was the result of non-compliance by the LEA or the school, the parents can pray in aid the fact that they willingly entered into the contract.
	On the other hand, it would be realistic for us to acknowledge that, if the provision did not exist, the authorities would, in any event, be entitled to call evidence about co-operation or lack of co-operation by the parents, in order to prove their case that a parenting order was necessary. We think that it is a helpful highlight for both parties; that is, that their behaviour in relation to how they pursued their agreement could be relied upon when the matter came before the court.
	Amendment No. 109 would remove the requirement that courts should consider any previous refusal to enter into or failure to comply with the parenting contract in deciding whether to impose a parenting order in cases of exclusion from school.
	Parenting is challenging; we recognise that. Parenting contracts will allow parents to access support through a formal arrangement where they can expect the school or LEA to work with them to improve their child's behaviour or attendance. We would prefer it if parents were engaged via this route. However, we remain convinced that should an application for a parenting order become necessary, there must be some recognition by the court of a parent's behaviour during the contract process.
	That is not to say that failure to meet the terms of the contract will automatically lead to an order. It will still be for the LEA to decide whether an application for an order is an appropriate next step. As I have already indicated, the court will be required to take into account all the evidence.
	Amendments Nos. 112 and 138 relate to Clauses 21 and 27. They would remove the penalty, available on conviction, for failing to comply, without reasonable excuse, with requirements included in the parenting orders or specified in directions given by the responsible officer. In other words, the amendments would remove the teeth from the parenting order provisions. If made, there would be no consequence for a parent who refused to meet the requirements of an order. We do not think that that is right.
	Parenting orders will not be sought lightly. In serious cases, where the parent is influencing—or failing to influence—the behaviour of their child so severely that it is resulting in that child's exclusion or that child becoming known to the youth offending team, and where they are refusing to operate voluntarily, it must be right for the parent to be made aware of the seriousness of their actions and to have the opportunity to do something to change them. The parenting order is such a mechanism, but without the possibility of genuine consequences for non-compliance, a parenting order would cease to be a credible sanction. I therefore hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will not press their amendments.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have not contributed to the discussions on the Bill before. I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me for asking a question now, but I am extremely interested in this particular proposal. I think that I am right in saying that in California everyone signs a contract when they send a child to school. That seems a very good idea. Asking for a contract to be signed only when their children are in trouble indicates to parents that it is not something that everyone should do; it happens only when there is trouble.
	Have the Government considered that it might be better to take the voluntary contract out of the legal process and place it into normal education procedure? Thus, an obligation would be created for everyone. A voluntary contract, which can be used as evidence that a parent is trying to comply, seems to be unfair on everyone else. Have the Government considered a contract for the parents of everyone who goes to school? I see that the noble Baroness has her colleague from the Department for Education and Skills beside her, so she should be able to tell me. It is interesting that a parenting order is being used as part of the legal process, which I find quite strange.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As Members of the Committee will have noticed, I have help from everywhere. I shall try to explain the process clearly. The noble Baroness is right about California and, indeed, many other places where a contract is signed when anyone goes to school. However, I reassure the noble Baroness that we have similar provisions. On entry to school, many schools have a contract that parents, children and the school sign, which states the behaviour expected from the parents, the behaviour expected from the child, and matters of that type.
	We are introducing the parenting contract, as specified in the Bill, to target those parents who are not complying with the generality of good behaviour. More specifically, their children are suffering disadvantage by virtue of not coming to school properly, if at all, and are being excluded. This is a way of re-engaging those parents who fall within that category in a more direct and structured way.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not want to take up the Committee's time, but I think that the noble Baroness has highlighted my point. Supposing a child was in a school where the parents had already signed a contract. Now they would be signing another one. Would that mean anything? That illustrates my point. For these parents, it would be strange to find themselves promising again to do all those things just because they are in trouble. I do not want to hold up the Committee's time, but I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the contract in relation to the whole process. If we think that a contract is useful in these circumstances, it might be a good idea if it is compulsory in all schools.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We are trying to enhance good practice. The noble Baroness is right to say that there is a different job of work almost that needs to be done in relation to these parents. The noble Baroness should know that it will be put in the context of a school and maybe the LEA, already working in a very targeted and focused way with these particular parents, to deal with identified problems that have arisen with the children.
	In terms of the contract, this is an opportunity to do something about the problems. If the parents choose not to take advantage of an opportunity to enter into a contract, it will be for the LEA and/or the school to consider what further or other steps might have to be taken in order to persuade them to do their duty. One of those steps might be a parenting order, which has more teeth in terms of obliging parents to comply. That is how the two fit together. Therefore, there is a difference between the existing Department for Education and Skills home/school agreements and parenting contracts, as I tried to describe.
	I do not believe that I responded to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about parenting contracts and the 13th report on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. Members of the Committee will know that the report also concluded that the Government were entitled to take the view that the provisions of Clause 18 would be compatible with ECHR Article 8. Although there was a discussion, it was decided that it was compatible.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I should like to probe further on some of these issues. I am unhappy about the degree to which a voluntary contract can be brought into court proceedings—a concern not only on these Benches. A large number of children's organisations are also concerned. Barnardo's, the Children's Rights Alliance for England, the Children's Society, family service units, NACRO, the National Association for Youth Justice, the National Children's Bureau, National Children's Homes, the National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations, the NSPCC, the National Youth Agency and the YMCA England have a number of serious reservations about the status of parenting contracts. That is because the refusal to sign one can be cited as grounds for application for a parenting order, the breach of which can lead to a level 3 fine of £1,000. These are the two issues that I seek to raise in this series of amendments.
	A £1,000 fine for breaching a parenting order seems disproportionate and excessive. When we have discussed this with the Minister, the implication has been that such a fine is never going to be levied; that under normal circumstances the fines to be levied for breaches of such orders will relate to the income of those concerned and in effect the maximum fine will seldom be more than £100. We feel, therefore, that it is rather absurd to put on the face of the Bill a provision implying that the maximum fine can be a level 3 fine of £1,000.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We may again have conflated parenting orders and contracts. Perhaps I may try to unravel that because I believe that the noble Baroness said that the charities she mentioned are concerned that a breach of the parenting contract could lead to another order and that there would be a reliance on the breach.
	The breach of the contract would not form the basis on which the parenting order was made. The original failure and non-compliance would be the matters that would go before the court to determine whether there should be a parenting order, but the court would be entitled to know that there had been a parenting contract which had either been reneged on or had failed for some other reason. The court could then make inquiries of both parties—the local education authority and the parent—about what part, if any, they played in the breakdown of that contract in order to assess whether, in the circumstances, a parenting order is merited.
	Noble Lords know that the court will be perfectly capable of deciding that, while the local education authority may have applied for a parenting order, it is not minded to make one for various reasons. So it is the original behaviour which could have justified the parenting order that will be relied on when the matter comes to court.
	I shall deal now with the question of the appropriate fine. The noble Baroness will know that all that the level of the fine indicates is the maximum fine. Therefore once the court is seized of the matter, it will be in a position to assess which kind of sentence—in the Criminal Justice Bill we are now creating a much broader range of options than were possible before—and which type of disposal would be the best one for that case. It may be that the court may come to the conclusion than something other than a fine may suffice. The provision simply sets the outer limit, the maximum fine beyond which a sentencer would not be entitled to go.
	Noble Lords will know that families vary in their financial means. What may be a huge burden for one family—a fine of £5 could be such a burden for some—for others, a fine of £1,000 could be a mere bagatelle. We also know that, unfortunately, poor behaviour in children is not the sole preserve of the poor.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her detailed explanation. I shall read carefully what she has said.

Lord Dixon-Smith: This has been a useful debate. The Minister has made clear the progressive nature of the process. It starts off as an essentially voluntary exercise that seeks to work by persuasion and moves through to what I would describe as coercion and, finally, to compulsion if that is what is needed.
	We should all be quite clear that parents have the option to do without any of these actions. They may persuade the child to attend school or to mend its ways and behave in a more socially acceptable manner. That is always a choice for the parents. It could be the case—I am sure that the noble Baroness would hope that it would be so—that parents called in before a headmaster or a representative of the education authority to be warned that this procedure might begin would take the matter seriously. In fact, that would be the step which persuades the parents to take the necessary action vis-a-vis the child.
	The position has been made clear and that is most helpful. I have no difficulty with the progressive nature of the process. It must be progressive if one is dealing with recalcitrant parents who will not take their responsibilities seriously. I accept that there are some parents with such problems and that they have great difficulty with this, and I am sure that those cases will be dealt with in an extremely humane way.
	We shall study carefully the helpful explanation given by the noble Baroness, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 97 to 99 not moved.]

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 100:
	Page 18, line 18, at end insert—
	"( ) Where a local education authority incurs costs as a result of carrying out its functions specified in this section, the appropriate person shall make arrangements for it to be compensated in relation to these costs."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving Amendment No. 100, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 114 grouped with it. Both are probing amendments which relate to the costs borne by local education authorities as a result of setting up arrangements for parenting orders and parenting contracts. Of the two amendments, Amendment No. 114 is probably the more significant.
	Amendment No. 100 relates to Clause 19 and the voluntary parenting contracts between the LEA, the school and the parents. Earlier in our discussions I argued that such contracts should be made exclusively between the LEA and the parents. I have also made it clear in our discussions that the support services provided by the LEA in terms of advice and counselling must be significant and individually tailored to parents' needs.
	In pursuing that route, costs will not be insignificant even for the voluntary agreement. They will involve the drawing-up and negotiating of the contract between the parents and the school. It may take officials much time to set up meetings and, often, to rearrange them if one partner fails to appear. The contract must then be drawn up, signatures collected, advice sessions set up and tabs kept on whether each side is meeting its obligations.
	Amendment No. 114 is the more important amendment because it relates to the costs incurred by a local authority in seeking and policing a parenting order, as well as the costs of implementing the requirements of that order in terms of counselling, advice and support. As it stands, Clause 21(4), which we are seeking to amend, makes it clear that the Secretary of State or, in the case of Wales, the National Assembly, may by regulation lay down who is to meet these costs.
	The Minister will know that local education authorities are currently very tightly budgeted. By law some 90 per cent of LEA funds are passported directly through to schools. What is left is all too little to meet the demands of central responsibilities such as special educational needs and school transport. These new powers to set up parenting orders are really a part of the law and order agenda rather than the education agenda. The amendment seeks to make it clear that the costs incurred in setting up and administering the system of parenting orders and contracts should fall on the Secretary of State for Home Affairs rather than on the education budget. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendment No. 113 is grouped with these amendments. It deals with the same subject, albeit in a different way.
	Clause 21(4) states:
	"The appropriate person may by regulations make provision as to how the costs associated with the requirements of parenting orders under section 20 (including the costs of providing counselling or guidance programmes) are to be borne".
	Why do we need this on the face of the Bill? I assume that the Bill authorises any expenditure necessary in relation to this provision. If so, it becomes part of local government expenditure and part of the negotiations between local government and the Government to determine what funding will be relevant for the government grant in the ensuing year. That in turn, in due course, determines what the council tax payers' contribution will be.
	Why do we need to go further than that? If that is the arrangement, it does not make much difference whether the expenditure arises from the school's budget or the LEA's budget if it is part of relevant expenditure. The two are parts of the same grand formula.
	There are two possible reasons for this. First, the Government are attempting to do what they so often do—that is, to micro-manage in intense detail. That should not be necessary because, if this expenditure is part of relevant local government expenditure, it does not need micro-managing. Secondly, it may be that the Government are looking for an opportunity to get out of providing their share and to put it all on the council tax payer. Apart from those two reasons, I have great difficulty in understanding why we need to regulate this issue at all.
	I do not agree with the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, which demand compensation for such expenditure. I am quite convinced that it forms a part of general local government expenditure and should be met in the general way through a combination of the council tax payer and the taxpayer. If we start to make exceptions for such matters, we will be heading down an extremely dangerous road. It is not an appropriate way to go.
	My amendment seeks to persuade the Minister—I do not think she will need any persuading—to explain precisely the financial arrangements and the need for this peculiar subsection, which does not belong in the Bill.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall be more than happy to explain. I hope to give comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that we have no intention of micro-managing this provision, but we do intend to give local education authorities and schools the tools they need to make it work.
	The effect of Amendments Nos. 100 and 114 would be to create a specific and compulsory grant-making power which would be completely unsuitable in the light of Section 14 of the Education Act 2002, which introduced a wide grant-making power that is already in force. However, I understand that the noble Baroness is concerned how the costs of guidance or counselling sessions advocated under a parenting contract or order will be met by local education authorities or schools.
	I can reassure the noble Baroness that we do not envisage that parenting contracts or orders will lead to any additional costs for local education authorities. As has been identified by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, local education authorities already have responsibility for promoting regular attendance and good behaviour in schools, and the costs of parenting contracts will be offset by savings made through preventing the need for prosecutions in cases of truancy and avoiding the need to provide expensive alternative provision for excluded pupils. In any case, the use of parenting contracts and orders is voluntary. We shall set out in guidance factors that should be considered when deciding whether to enter into a parenting contract or deciding whether to apply to the court for a parenting order.
	Amendment No. 113 seeks to remove the power to issue further regulations relating specifically to parenting orders in cases of exclusion from school. The regulations will be needed to set out who will be expected to meet the costs of counselling or guidance programmes included as part of a parenting order.
	Although the local education authority is responsible for applying for a parenting order, it may agree to do so on behalf of the school. We expect that in most cases the local education authority will bear the costs associated with parenting orders, except in cases where an alternative arrangement is agreed with the school. We need to consult with those who are directly affected to ensure that there is an appropriate method of apportioning costs where necessary. That is why detail of this kind is left to regulation.
	I do not agree with the noble Baroness in relation to funding. She knows that the Government have put in a huge amount of increased funding since 1997. Indeed, the Committee will know that through the behaviour improvement programme the Government have invested a further £342.2 million in this area. We hope that local education authorities and those responsible for bringing about an improvement in children's behaviour in educational establishments will seek to take advantage of that additional funding and use it judicially and well to the benefit of the children they seek to serve.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I do not have the last word on this issue, which is probably just as well.
	The Minister did extremely well until she referred to the need for regulations. At that point, if I understood her correctly, she began to speak about the need for the regulations to apportion the costs between the LEA and the school. I wonder what the relationship between an LEA and its schools might be that we need regulations to deal with a matter like that. I admit that times have moved on since I was involved and that relationships may have become worse, but the idea that you need to regulate this kind of thing from the centre is quite ridiculous.
	If the regulations are made within an open framework which allows a considerable degree of variation to meet local circumstances, that is one thing; but if the regulations are specific, that is entirely another. Regrettably, my experience of looking at regulations in this kind of area since I have been in this place has been that the regulations tend to be more and more specific as time goes by. That is one of the reasons why local authorities have so much difficulty. There is too much specificity in these processes.
	The noble Baroness may be able to reassure me, but I could not resist coming back to say that I am genuinely concerned. I have always believed in treating people responsibly and giving them a free rein if it is at all possible to do so. I have always found that if you do that they then behave responsibly.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall try to reassure the noble Lord. I indicated how we expect it would work in the normal way. However, we wish to consult those who will be most affected by this to make sure we get it right.
	We are looking to craft a model which will be a practitioner's guide and which everyone will know how to operate and understand. We have phrased the provision to allow us to consult on these issues to see what should go into the regulations and what should not. I can give the noble Lord comfort that there is no definitive, defined plan at this point.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her response. As I stated earlier, my two amendments were probing amendments, prompted by Clause 21(4). Like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I noted that it sought to apportion costs. I have some reservations about the wording used by the Minister when she talked about apportioning costs between schools and local authorities.
	I take into account the amount of money that has been put into the education budget for behaviour improvement. I am delighted that it is going in. However, many of the procedures that have been set in place consume considerable funds. I think—indeed, I certainly hope—that in the long run this will diminish other costs. In the short run, it may well increase costs considerably. We all know that we cannot reap where we do not sow.
	The assumption is sometimes that local authorities can bear these costs. I know only too well that frequently it is a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul. If extra mandatory requirements are put on a local authority, the non-mandatory requirements are affected. For example, youth services have been squeezed hard for years because so many other requirements have been mandatory.
	I will ponder these matters further. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
	Clause 19 agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Parenting orders in cases of exclusion from school]:
	[Amendments Nos. 101A to 107 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 102 to 107 not moved.]
	Clause 20 agreed to.
	Clause 21 [Parenting orders: supplemental]:
	[Amendments Nos. 108 to 114 not moved.]

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 115:
	Page 19, line 23, leave out "head teachers and responsible officers"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving Amendment No. 115, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 129, 130 and 131.
	All these amendments concern the role of head teachers and other responsible officers in relation to parenting orders and the issuing of fixed penalty notices. Amendment No. 115 is merely a probing amendment. I have already made it clear from these Benches that we would prefer head teachers not to be involved in administering parenting orders, least of all going to court and seeking such an order. What responsibilities does the Minister have in mind for head teachers under these parenting orders?
	Amendment No. 117 and subsequent amendments in the group are more substantive and relate to an issue of principle. Clause 23 extends the use of fixed penalties to truancy, in effect allowing parents to buy themselves out of prosecution by paying a fixed penalty instead of going to court. It grants the power to issue such strict penalty notices not only to local education authorities whose responsibility it is to police truancies but to police constables, teachers and head teachers.
	We on these Benches are very unhappy at this extension of responsibilities. We have already made it clear that we do not think teachers should be involved in issuing the voluntary parenting contract. If such contracts are to work, they need to be voluntary and the teachers need to be seen to be a neutral party, helping to make the relationship between pupils and parents work. Giving teachers the power to impose fixed penalties on parents would, we feel, completely jeopardise this relationship.
	It is for educational welfare officers within LEAs to take on that responsibility and work closely with schools and families to resolve attendance issues. Their responsibilities are clearly set out in the Department for Education and Skills guidance on Social Inclusion: Pupil Support—SIPS guidance. It includes the following competences: the ability to promote regular school attendance and to help parents in meeting their responsibilities in securing the education of children and young people; the ability to assess and review children and young people and family circumstances, plan appropriate responses and intervention within the statutory framework and evaluate outcomes.
	These are core skills which enable educational welfare officers to make an assessment of the individual circumstances on which to base any decisions on what response is most appropriate in cases of truancy. These are not skills the police are trained in or have experience of. The SIPS guidance sets out that schools and educational welfare officers should have clearly defined roles, and the school's role is to be helpful and supportive.
	The proposals give power to schools for the enforcement of truancy and would create a radically different relationship between the school and the family that could be damaging. Asking a school or an LEA to fine a parent could increase existing tensions between parents, their children and their schools. The proposals could also further exacerbate child and family problems, and may have an adverse effect on family relationships.
	There are also broader concerns in these cases, where a criminal offence is alleged to have been committed. The due process of fair trial should not be evaded. Such an extension of penalising powers outside the court process causes concern and possible breaches of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
	If the Government are not prepared to amend the Bill, we seek the following assurances: that the Government intend that most fixed penalty notices will be issued by LEAs; that regulations will ensure that the grounds for issuing a fixed penalty notice and the right of appeal are clearly set out; that the amount to be paid will be less than the current fine for a person found guilty of an offence under Section 444 of the Education Act 1944; and that the Government are satisfied that by extending powers to issue fixed penalty notices under these provisions, they are not breaching Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
	Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 seek to delete the whole of new Section 444A and insert instead a simple requirement that any penalty notices or other procedures should be issued only by a local education authority under the auspices of the educational welfare officers.
	Amendments Nos. 120 and 122 require that a head teacher is to be explicitly excluded from among those who may issue penalty notices.
	Amendment No. 123 excludes police constables from issuing penalty notices for truancy. This reiterates our belief that the only authorities which should have the knowledge and power to issue penalty notices for truancy should be local education authorities and educational welfare officers.
	When we come to Clause 49, we shall be discussing how widely powers to issue fixed penalty notices should be extended. For the moment, suffice it to say that while of course police officers play a very important role in chasing up truants, they seldom have the detailed information about the truants or their family background to know whether it is appropriate to issue fixed penalty notices in these circumstances. That is why we believe that the job should be left to local education authorities and education welfare officers. They are the specialist staff trained to handle such situations, and only they should be authorised to issue penalty notices of this sort.
	Amendments Nos. 125, 129, 130 and 131 are all consequential amendments that follow from the position that we have taken. Perhaps I should say, in relation to Amendment No. 125, that in so far as we believe that police constables should not be issuing fixed penalty notices for truancy, so a fortiori that applies to community support officers. I beg to move.

Lord Hylton: I should like—

Lord Dixon-Smith: If the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will forgive me, I have some amendments grouped with these amendments, which I should perhaps speak to so that the whole group is before the House.
	Amendment No. 120 would remove the power of the head teacher to authorise others to issue penalty notices. Amendment No. 124 would authorise a community safety officer to issue penalty notices. I note the difference of opinion between the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and myself about the involvement of the police in this sector. However, if the police have the power to do that, community safety officers—that new category of catch-all, wonderful people, who will fulfil a very useful role and very often may be the first people to realise that a child is truanting—may be even more appropriate to exercise that function. In some authorities, I imagine that a community safety officer on the ground may realise what is going on while an education welfare officer or truanting officer, or whatever they are now called, because they are relatively few and far between, might not find out until much later. There is a real issue involved in that.
	Amendment No. 126 would mean that a head teacher or "his authorised nominee" at a school might issue a fixed penalty notice. Using that wording would restrict it to one per school, which would be necessary for the sake of clarity within the school and for parents and children.
	Amendment No. 127 is in a sense slightly inconsistent with Amendment No. 120, as it once again involves the head teacher. That is because of the way in which the Bill is drawn up. The amendment would mean that the person issuing fixed penalty notices for a school would be a member of the non-teaching staff. It would probably be wise to avoid having academic staff involved in issuing fixed penalty notices. That certainly concerns us, and it needs careful consideration.
	Amendment No. 128 takes us back to amending the paragraph that refers to,
	"a member of the staff of a relevant school in England who is authorised by the head teacher of the school to give penalty notices".
	The amendment would take out the head teacher out and revert to the LEA.
	It is difficult to see exactly how the new system will work. I imagine that the noble Baroness, who has to devise the regulations to make the provisions work, will have to run a few experiments before she can be absolutely certain of the most appropriate way in which to make progress. There is such a breadth of detail in this very long part of the Bill, which allows an almost infinite variety of possibilities. However, it will be necessary in the end to have something simple and straightforward that can be made to work universally. It may therefore need to be broad brush. To try by regulation to define with precision exactly how the provisions will work will be an immensely complex task, and I am glad that it is the task of the noble Baroness and not mine.
	Our points need serious consideration, and we thought that they should be before the Chamber.

Lord Hylton: I shall speak to Amendment No. 119A to Clause 23, which is entirely a probing amendment, as Members of the Committee may have guessed.
	It is important that fixed penalties should not become a quick fix or substitute for parental contracts or parenting orders. I start from the general proposition that non-attendance and truancy is often a symptom of other difficulties that need to be addressed, and not only something that gives rise to a fine. One can think of many examples of the underlying difficulties, such as bullying at school, violence and abuse in the home, parental discord, the ill health or emotional imbalances of pupils, or pupils being addicted to substances—or even worse, or as bad—to crime. Therefore, I agree with the NSPCC that compulsory measures should be used only as a last resort.
	The LGA has argued, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, pointed out, that fixed penalties may adversely affect family relationships, perhaps especially in cases of cohabitation, trial marriages and step relationships. Such penalties could increase the number of children taken into care where, eventually, a parent is sent to prison for non-payment. I note that there is no right of appeal or representation as regards fixed penalties.
	What are the Government's views on those last two points and what do they intend to do to minimise the taking into care of children because of non-payment? With the Bill as it stands, will parents suffer prosecution if they deny the facts behind a fixed penalty notice, oppose the penalty or are unable to pay?
	Problems of professional ethics already arise under Section 444 of the Education Act 1996 and the Criminal Justice Act 2000. In one county in the South West, parents are invited to a court assessment meeting at the school with their child. A senior education welfare officer chairs the meeting and an education welfare officer gives evidence about non-attendance and reasons for it. The chairman then decides whether to acquit, review the case later, give a warning or recommend court action. He thus appears to act as prosecutor, judge and jury. Furthermore he is often the line manager of the junior EWO, who may be tempted to say what his senior wants to hear.
	That quasi-judicial process seems somewhat flawed, especially when dealing with inarticulate parents who do not have representation.
	Can the Minister tell us how that may be improved and what the effect of the fixed penalties is likely to be on our existing procedures? Can she give us details of plans for developing alternative kinds of education for pupils who simply do not fit into the available standard schools where they are supposed to be, especially when those pupils are disruptive and rebellious teenagers? Can she say whether behaviour improvement programmes are successful in helping children to reintegrate into schools from which they have been absconding?
	Finally, I should like to inquire about lines 18 and 39 on page 21 of the Bill. The first refers to a police constable and the second to a community support officer. I can see that it may be necessary to include police and quasi-police in relation to fixed penalties for the sake of completeness. I ask, however—as I think did the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—whether the Government wish to involve the police in cases other than the most exceptional ones. If the police can remain outside this process, that seems wholly desirable. The police have more important things to do and might only aggravate some situations.
	I conclude by asking the noble Baroness if she will be kind enough to look again at the drafting of subsections (4), (5), (7) and (8). They seem hardly elegant, and I wonder whether they are really necessary. The answer may be that they seek to improve the poor drafting of previous Bills. However, perhaps they only make matters worse for the lay user of the Bill.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I start by immediately reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that these provisions are not a means by which parents can buy themselves out of prosecution. She will know that the application of a fixed penalty notice does not expunge the basis on which it was issued if that penalty is not paid. Indeed, it is hoped that the penalty itself will be one of the catalysts for improved behaviour. It is very important that I make that plain at the beginning, before I begin my other remarks, as I know that some may have had the anxiety which the noble Baroness expressed. I should like very expressly to reassure her that that is not the case.
	Amendments Nos. 115, 130 and 131, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, would remove the power for head teachers and their nominees to act as responsible officers for parenting orders. I say straightaway that I understand the thrust of what the noble Baroness says and the anxiety she has expressed. However, we cannot accept that head teachers or their staff should be written out of the picture in this way. In many instances, it will be appropriate for this responsibility to lie with the local education authority. However, it is also right to allow for the possibility that a head teacher or their nominee should take on this role.
	It is not hard to think of an instance where the head or a member of school staff is the person working most closely with the child and parents in order to bring about an improvement in behaviour, and there is no reason why they should not be designated the responsible officer with their consent. Our proposed regulations would ensure that that would be possible only if the school governing body also agrees. Guidance will advise on the appropriate circumstances for a school to be involved in overseeing a parenting order. Nothing in these provisions is mandatory or obliges head teachers, LEAs or others to participate. We are simply creating extra tools within the practitioners' toolkit. If they think that they can and should properly and effectively use them to assist a parent and a child on the road to recovery in terms of behaviour, those tools will be available for them.
	One could think of a number of examples in which head teachers could be assisted thereby. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Ashton gave me one such example. Some basically good parents—by which I mean parents who meet the average developmental and emotional needs of their child—can have a total or almost total disregard for timing or for whether their child should go to school. Teachers have been able to do very little to encourage such parents. They are not so bad that one would wish to remove the child or take corrective action through the courts, but they are sufficiently in error for one to wish to change their behaviour. If they thought that the school could do something about their bringing their child to school late every day—so that the child missed its first maths lesson, for example, for a year—and that a fixed penalty notice might result, that could be the catalyst in persuading them that it might be better to find an earlier bus. We know that children in such circumstances are sometimes excluded for half a day or something of that sort. So in such cases the orders could be a truly useful tool that could be used if the teacher thought it appropriate. These amendments would introduce inflexibility into the operation of parenting orders that would hinder their effectiveness in dealing with the root causes of poor behaviour.
	I turn now to the amendments on penalty notices for truancy. Penalty notices have an important role to play as one of a wide range of interventions to promote better school attendance, which is essential to improve children's educational prospects and to avoid putting them at risk of criminal or anti-social behaviour. I shall begin with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—Amendments Nos. 120, 126, 127 and 128.
	Your Lordships will be aware from the debate in another place of our intention to limit to senior school staff only those who may be authorised by head teachers to issue penalty notices. Draft regulations which have been placed in the Library of the House specify that limitation as applying to deputy head teachers and assistant head teachers. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, agrees with me that head teachers should be given the discretion to issue penalty notices. Our proposals would enable head teachers to empower their senior management team to do the same.
	We think that head teachers can be trusted not just to issue penalty notices themselves, but also to empower their senior management team to do the same. It is often the case that a deputy or assistant head teacher will take on responsibility for attendance and discipline matters within a school, and we believe that it is appropriate that they are able to support the head teacher further by issuing penalty notices, if the school has decided to make use of this sanction. Our view is that the head teacher is in a better position than the local education authority to decide which, if any, of their staff should be empowered to issue these notices. A number of head teachers have said that they welcome such a power for themselves and their senior management team because it will bolster their and their school's authority to ensure that parents take seriously their responsibilities to ensure that their children attend school.
	Similarly, we believe that the senior management team are in a far better position than ancillary staff to know the detailed circumstances of each case and to exercise the professional judgment required. We are not saying that clerical staff cannot provide support in issuing penalty notices, simply that the decision to issue should be taken at a higher level. It is right that schools should challenge as well as support parents and decisions about which approach to take should be taken by the senior management team.
	Amendment No. 124 would add the words "a community safety officer" after "a constable" in the list of authorised officers. I join the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in commending the good work that has been done by such officers. The Bill refers to community support officers (CSOs) rather than community safety officers but we believe that we are talking about precisely the same thing. The amendment is therefore unnecessary because community support officers are already included. New Section 444B(3) of the Bill amends the Police Reform Act 2002 to give a community support officer the same powers as a constable to issue a penalty notice for truancy.
	I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I shall begin by clarifying one matter. This Bill does not create a new offence in respect of truancy. Under existing legislation (Section 444 of the Education Act), parents of a registered pupil whose child fails to attend school regularly have committed an offence for which prosecution is currently the only available sanction. Penalty notices will provide an alternative and enable parents to discharge potential liability for conviction for that offence by paying a penalty. The reference to "proceedings" in new Section 444A(3) of this Bill refers to bringing a prosecution for truancy under the existing Education Act provisions and is intended to ensure that any prosecution is stayed until the parent has had an appropriate opportunity to pay the penalty. I hope that these comments respond to Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 in the name of the noble Baroness.
	The remainder of the noble Baroness's amendments deal with who should issue these notices. I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured when I say that we expect most penalty notices to be issued by local authority education welfare officers, who also organise prosecutions for truancy. But we believe that it is right also to give a number of others the power to do so. I shall not repeat what I have already said in that regard. Instead, I shall explain why the police should have a role in issuing penalty notices. The police nowadays are far more involved in the world of education than they used to be. In some areas there are now police based in schools and in many schools police deliver talks on various subjects such as drugs awareness and personal safety. And of course the police are a key agency in combating truancy at street level as they continue to fulfil their traditional role of accompanying education welfare officers during the operation of local authority truancy sweeps and patrols through the use of the Section 16 power of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which enables police officers to bring truanting children and young people back to school or a place of safety. So there is nothing new about the police having a role in tackling truancy.
	Police officers involved in truancy work locally will understand the issues and in many cases will know the children and families they encounter out of school, whether on a truancy sweep or otherwise. It would therefore be illogical and potentially counter-productive to create a situation where they were prevented from issuing penalty notices.
	Naturally we are anxious to ensure consistency in the way penalty notices are used and we intend to achieve this in two ways: first, by issuing statutory guidance which will ensure national consistency and cover the general circumstances in which a penalty notice might be issued. The statutory guidance and associated regulations will be the subject of a full public consultation. Secondly, we intend to ensure consistency through a local code of conduct which will be prepared by the local education authority, the purpose of which is to ensure local consistency and the smooth administration of the scheme. In preparing the code LEAs will consult schools and the police who will subsequently issue penalty notices within the parameters of that local protocol.
	Last, but by no means least, I turn to Amendment No. 119A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. This would remove all the supplementary provisions relating to penalty notices. These provisions are necessary to ensure the effective administration and consistent application of the penalty notice scheme; indeed, the scheme could not work without them. The regulation-making powers are required to specify who can issue notices—

Lord Hylton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I explained that it was purely a probing amendment. I gave notice to the noble Baroness's department of the points that I wished to raise. Therefore, I look forward to a very sympathetic reply.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that the reply will be sympathetic. I am comforted by the comments made by the noble Lord now and also earlier when he said that the amendment was probing. Others outside the House have also voiced these concerns. I reassure them that the reason we are not pursuing them is because we believe that the measure could have an effect that I know the noble Lord does not seek.
	As I say, the regulation-making powers are required to specify who can issue notices and details about the local codes of conduct—important matters which I spoke about earlier. The power to issue guidance is necessary to clarify the circumstances in which a penalty notice is issued and will ensure national consistency.
	I turn to some of the other issues the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised. He outlined many of the other reasons which cause and contribute to truancy. That was well said. We know that many of the children who truant have suffered from bullying and have problems at home. One has to try to get a broader understanding of why those children do not attend school and/or why they behave badly. One has to dig a little more deeply and not treat the matter superficially. We agree that there are many causes of truancy, including those mentioned by the noble Lord, and others including boredom, disaffection with school, personal or family problems. The national behaviour and attendance strategy aims to tackle these issues. We are investing nearly £470 million over the next three years in a national behaviour and attendance strategy—which I have already referred to in relation to other amendments—to support schools in improving behaviour and tackling truancy. Through the strategy, all secondary schools will soon have access to training materials and behaviour and attendance experts so that the senior management team in a school is confident and equipped in dealing with poor behaviour and attendance and can pass on its knowledge to other staff.
	Schools will be challenged to think about a range of factors, including: whether they have clear rules on bullying and dealing with unacceptable behaviour in the playground; how clubs and other activities outside the school day and at weekends can support what happens during formal school sessions; how to make the best use of computerised registration to identify pupils with attendance problems; how to involve education welfare officers in working with families who have not sent their child into school; whether staff are sufficiently well trained in responding to classroom disruptions and in dealing with disruptive pupils; and how—this is important—to develop the use of learning mentors and learning support units to help children with particular problems. We are recruiting additional people with the relevant expertise and skills to support schools and education authorities in this work. We shall monitor the benefits that accrue from that. My noble friend Lady Ashton, who is present on the Front Bench, will be more than happy to write to the noble Lord and take up some of the specific issues he raised which may be slightly outwith what we can deal with now.
	Negative effects on home/school relationships would occur only if school staff used their power to administer penalty notices inappropriately. We should be able to trust practitioners to use their discretion wisely and, as I said, we intend to issue guidance to help them to do so.
	We do not agree that penalty notices will add to the numbers of children in care. Penalty notices are an alternative to prosecution and, if a notice is not paid, the LEA will have to withdraw the notice or prosecute. Before handing down a sentence of imprisonment, which is available only in the case of the aggravated offence of truancy, courts are under a duty to consider the home circumstances of the family, usually assessed via a probation report. That would include taking into account the child's best interests. Courts must consider the parent's ability to pay in setting the level of a fine.
	There is no statutory right of appeal against a penalty notice. As I have already explained, they are an alternative to prosecution. A parent who wishes to challenge a notice can refuse to pay and can defend the subsequent prosecution. Guidance and regulations will also ensure that the notice itself makes that clear. Of course, however, a penalty notice will not come to a parent out of the blue. They will already know that the school and/or LEA are concerned about their child's attendance, and our statutory guidance will suggest that parents should be advised as soon as a penalty notice is being considered. It is at those earlier stages that a parent may make representations about the notice if they wish. An LEA will have the power to withdraw a penalty notice.
	We do not agree that penalty notices undermine the security that we seek to put in place. In fact, they could reinforce it. They give the parent an opportunity to consider their position, whether they want to change, whether they would rather be prosecuted or pay a penalty fine, or to consider with the school whether any of those courses could be avoided by entering into a well-targeted parental agreement through the contract about which we spoke earlier. It gives them an ambit.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, spoke about the level of penalties. The issue has caused her and others concern. We intend to consult on the level of penalty, but our intention in setting the levels was to reflect the usual fines given by magistrates in truancy prosecution cases. We think it important to have different levels of penalty. A parent who is prepared to acknowledge that their child's absence is unauthorised will be able to pay a lesser penalty than a parent who is not. We think that acknowledgement of wrongdoing is an important part of the process.
	A lesser level for early payment is important, as we believe that it will underpin the administrative efficiency of the scheme. We want to minimise the burden on the local education authority responsible for its administration. It is important that no one will have to issue a penalty notice—they are simply part of the toolkit. Nor will a parent have to pay a notice, although they of course run the risk of prosecution if they do not. Courts must take into account the ability to pay.
	The noble Baroness and, I hope, other Members of the Committee will have had the opportunity to look at the proposed draft regulations. In those we propose that, when a fixed penalty notice is applied, if it is paid within 14 days and if there is an agreement that an absence is unauthorised, the fine will be £25. If there were no agreement about the unauthorised absence, it would be £50. If payment were within 28 days in the first category, it would be £50, and in the second category £100. That is the level of fine about which we speak.
	I have sought to answer the issue as comprehensively as I could, as I wanted to give the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, the reassurances that she asked of me on how the provision would work, what the level would be and how it would be implemented. Her last request was to do with breach of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. Because the provision will be dealt with in the way I have described, we are content that it complies with that section.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: In everything that the noble Baroness has said, she has not mentioned Wales, and I take it that the clause applies to Wales. To what extent have the Government consulted the Welsh Assembly on the matter? They are legislating for Wales, as is their duty. However, they are legislating in a way that deeply affects everything that happens in schools, and the Welsh Assembly has a very big responsibility for how schools operate.
	The provisions will alter the relationship of the teaching staff of a school with parents and children other than those affected by the issue of a penalty notice. For the first time, teachers will be asked to operate the law of the land other than education policy in schools. Is the Welsh Assembly happy about that? It is a huge issue.
	The noble Baroness, in consultation with her education colleague, is making a judgment that the provision will help schools. In England and Wales, some of the teaching authorities are worried about it, and so are some of the local authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has told us of many of their concerns; I had that brief, too, and was interested in it. However, I am specifically asking whether the Assembly is happy about the provision. To whom will the Bill delegate the authority to issue orders? Will it be the Assembly or the Secretary of State for Wales? Will the Welsh Assembly be free to have its own code of conduct to send guidance under the Bill?
	Those are important points. I do not see a Member of the Committee based in Wales. I raise the issue simply because I am very interested in how devolution affects such measures. It is not enough that the Welsh Assembly knows about the provision. Has it agreed to such matters, and does it know how it will operate its devolved responsibilities?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Baroness for raising the Welsh banner as opposed to the Scottish one with which we are so familiar. She has raised an important point. Clause 70 deals with the extent to which the Bill will apply to Wales. Subsection (1) provides that:
	"Parts 1 to 5, 7 and 8 extend to England and Wales only".
	However, there are no fixed penalty notices for Wales. Enabling provisions can be made available if the Welsh Assembly so wishes. At the moment, the fixed penalty notice provisions refer to England only, but there would in the normal way be consultations. If the Welsh Assembly wished those enabling provisions to be activated, I dare say that that could come about.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Where does it say that? I cannot spot it. Of course I saw the extent clause before I spoke, but where does it say that fixed penalties do not apply?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The provisions in relation to fixed penalty notices are covered in Clause 23(9). It states:
	"The National Assembly for Wales may by order amend sections 444A and 444B of the Education Act 1996 . . . by removing the words "in England" in each place where they occur".

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Is the Welsh Assembly absolutely happy about the Bill?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have nothing before me to indicate that it is not so content. If I discover that I am in error, I will of course write to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I support the amendment. As the Minister knows, we on these Benches are extremely unhappy about the extension of the role of head teachers and others. Their specific and central role is the education and welfare of children but they are to have as part as their "toolkit" powers that may lead the parents of those children down a path that takes them to court.
	If there is non-payment of those fines, that is the ultimate route that they will take. Wide though the remit of head teachers and their staff is or could be, I fail to see how the exercise of that kind of power can do anything to promote good and harmonious relationships, which are so important for the education of the child, between parent and school. Such a power is punitive; it is potentially damaging and it does nothing to promote what is really central to the role of the teacher.
	I am both the chairman and the founder of a school. I know that many others in the education world are deeply concerned that such powers should be part of a so-called "toolkit". I really hope that the Government will reconsider. We will certainly return to this matter at a later stage.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear what the noble Baroness says. The exercise of such powers is neither punitive nor damaging. It is voluntary. There is nothing within the Bill that compels any local authority or teacher to exercise those powers. I remind the Committee that it is not true that the imposition of the penalty notice inexorably leads down the path to criminalisation, because, at the moment, failure to send one's child to school is an offence. The fixed penalty notices offer the parent an alternative to being found guilty of that criminal offence and an opportunity to rehabilitate and change if they so wish. If they do not wish to take that opportunity, the consequence for them and their child would be the old situation, where the only other course available is prosecution in the magistrates' court. That situation has prevailed for a very long time indeed.
	It is important to regard the provision not as punitive or damaging, but as an opportunity to divert people away from the criminal proceedings path and keep them, on a voluntary basis, within an area where we can still work with them creatively. I honour what the noble Baroness has said, but her view is not shared by many.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I want to make two further comments on the issue. We have been discussing two issues. The first is whether fixed penalty notices are a good idea for truancy. The second is the question of who should be responsible for the expenditures, if they are imposed.
	I have listened to the Minister. Like my noble friend Lady Linklater, I am still not convinced that fixed penalty notices are a good way of solving the problem. The Minister took offence at my suggestion that it was a way of parents buying themselves out of prosecution, but she did in fact explain that truancy is an offence and that parents will ultimately be prosecuted for it. Fixed penalties temporarily buy them out of it.
	I am not sure that it is a sensible way forward in any sense. The Minister quoted the example of parents who had difficulty with getting their children to school on time. The imposition of a fixed penalty in those circumstances would be totally inappropriate, whereas the voluntary parenting contract might be.
	We will return to the issue. We are not content with the answers that we have been given. We are not convinced that a large number of teachers are happy with the situation. Many have made clear to us their unhappiness at being placed in this position and it is important that we pursue it further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
	Clause 21 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 116A not moved.]
	Clause 22 agreed to.
	Clause 23 [Penalty notices for parents in cases of truancy]:
	[Amendments Nos. 117 to 129 not moved.]
	Clause 23 agreed to.
	Clause 24 [Interpretation]:
	[Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 132:
	Page 23, line 23, leave out subsection (2).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 25 [Parenting contracts in respect of criminal conduct and anti-social behaviour]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 133:
	Page 23, line 40, at end insert "or any statement by the youth offending team which it believes is appropriate for their side of a parenting contract"

Lord Dixon-Smith: With a little good fortune, we may deal with the amendment somewhat more rapidly. It is a short amendment and raises a small point.
	The amendment addresses what or what should not be in a parenting contract. The issue is whether the Bill is inclusive or exclusive. The Bill states:
	"A parenting contract is a document which contains . . . a statement by the parent that he agrees to comply with such requirements as may be specified in the document for such period as may be so specified, and . . . a statement by the youth offending team that it agrees to provide support to the parent for the purpose of complying with those requirements".
	If that is all the Bill states, the question is whether the wording is sufficiently flexible to permit the kind of variations that will be needed, depending on circumstances, the type of person that one is dealing with, the type of offence and so on. Therefore, in Amendment No. 133 I seek simply to widen out that wording and enable the youth offending team to add words if it considers that that would be helpful.
	I do not intend to devote any time to Amendment No. 134. We have discussed previously the question of "must" as opposed to "shall". It was perhaps careless of me and the Bill team not to ensure that all such amendments were put into one group. Therefore, I have nothing to say on that point. However, I believe that Amendment No. 133 is worth consideration. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I believe that Amendment No. 133 has the effect of allowing the youth offending team discretion to decide what it will agree to do as its part of a parenting contract, which need not include support. That would change the nature of the parenting contract, which is designed to provide parents with support to enable them to meet their responsibilities and thereby to improve the behaviour of their child.
	If the intention of the amendment were that youth offending teams should be able to include additional material, as well as the statement that they agree to provide the support, then we would argue that it is not necessary. As the clause is currently drafted, it does not prevent the contract containing other statements by the youth offending team, provided, of course, that the parent signs up to the contract. I believe that that may meet the needs of the noble Lord. I am delighted that he will not be pressing Amendment No. 134, for which I thank him.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful. I believe that the noble Baroness has answered the point that I raised with regard to parenting contracts. Certainly, in the amendment I had no intention of making it possible for youth offending teams to get away with not providing support. It was simply intended to give them the opportunity to add words.
	The Minister said that the wording of the Bill is not exclusive and that words can already be added. I am satisfied with that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
	Clause 25 agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.33 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Waterways

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they are doing to improve the regulation of the United Kingdom's rivers, canals and other inland waterways.
	My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to argue the case for the appointment of a waterways regulator to oversee the management and operation of about 3,000 miles of navigable rivers, canals and marinas along our coast. Although most of the network is publicly owned, I believe that there is a lack of co-ordinated and coherent oversight.
	About 10 million people make 160 million visits a year to the 2,000 miles of canals and rivers owned and operated on our behalf by British Waterways in England, Wales and Scotland. Millions more use and enjoy the 400 miles of rivers operated by the Environment Agency.
	Forty years ago, most of our canals were in decay—the forgotten roads of the industrial revolution. Most of the inland waterway system was under threat of closure. I want to pay a special tribute here to the enthusiasts who were determined that our canals would not die and that they should be restored as part of a priceless environmental leisure and heritage asset. Without their direct action on some occasions, there is good evidence that much of the network would have been lost to the bulldozer.
	Perhaps I may make immediately clear that I am not attacking British Waterways. I acknowledge and commend its programme of canal maintenance and improvement, as well as its impressive and continuing role in urban regeneration. For those of your Lordships who are unfamiliar with Birmingham's 42 miles of canals, perhaps I may issue an invitation to take a boat trip from Gas Street Basin in the heart of the city to see how adding a little water can achieve so much.
	That said, there are issues around what British Waterways, other operators and those who run coastal and river marinas charge for moorings, berths and licences. The complaint, especially in areas of high demand, is that boat owners are being fleeced, that complaints can lead to the loss of a berth or mooring and that there is no adequate appeal route. That is the nub of the case for a waterways regulator, although she or he would have other duties.
	I am aware, for example, that British Waterways receives only about £14 million a year from licence and mooring fees. That income rose by about 7 per cent in the past year. But, as the annual report makes clear, average fees were put up by 6 per cent in April last year, and boat licence fees rose by 1.8 per cent in January last year and a further 3 per cent this year.
	Out of an income of £192 million from government grants, third-party grants and business activities, including telecoms, water sales and property, the income from boat owners is small beer. But, with an estimated one-third of boat owners known to be on low incomes, there is an issue here. Of course, a senior citizens' boat card might help, and I hope that British Waterways will try to find ways to offer that, as is the case on the railways. However, again, there are wider issues.
	The prices charged for moorings and berths by providers reflect demand in the area, location and facilities. But, in areas of high demand, it does mean that the market rate is often set by monopoly or near-monopoly providers. British Waterways is instructed in the 1999 government framework document to,
	"maximise income . . . by charging the market rate".
	As I said, it is often in a position to set that market rate, as are private operators in relation to coastal and river marinas.
	Perhaps I may illustrate the point in this way. Tim Coghlan, Managing Director of Braunston Marina on the canal near Rugby, says that,
	"for at least the last five years every single canal marina that has been sold . . . has been . . . acquired by British Waterways".
	He claims that British Waterways has acquired 17 marinas, only two of which it has built, as well as Hull marina on the coast and others on rivers.
	I can understand the commercial logic of that and welcome the decision by British Waterways to set up a separate company to run the marinas to avoid any charges of cross-subsidy from the government grant and to aid transparency in the way that it sets fees within the marinas. However, that raises the issue of a near-monopoly supplier into which a regulator could inquire, especially as I understand that the marina acquisitions by British Waterways faced no competition.
	While a survey in which 5,000 canal boat owners were invited to take part by British Waterways in the 2002 season shows reasonable levels of satisfaction over upkeep, basic facilities, the provision of moorings, and so on—although I have to say that there is scope for the organisation to do far better and I am sure that it acknowledges that—there is a deal of discontent over charges.
	The Diglis Forum at Diglis Basin near Worcester claims that fees rose there by 11.7 per cent. A boat owner from Wembley tells me that mooring fees have increased by 30 per cent and adds:
	"British Waterways is ultimately in control of overall charges. You put up your charges, and marinas increase their charges which in turn 'justifies' your charges being increased and so on".
	It is put this way by a boat owner in Fareham:
	"If I am not happy with the cost of electricity I can switch to a different supplier. Mooring my boat I have no option. British Waterways is the only choice if I wish to keep my boat where it is".
	There are the same complaints about private marina operators, such as Marina Developments Limited (MDL). A boat owner from Paignton says,
	"Marina Developments Limited (MDL) already have a virtual monopoly in Torbay berthing and it would appear that as a result, year on year, they have been able to increase rentals substantially in excess of inflation".
	An owner with a boat in Woolverstone Marina on the river Orwell near Ipswich run by MDL, tells me,
	"Over the years when there have been vacant berths, the prices have gone up to recoup their losses. When the marina is full . . . the prices go up. It would appear MDL have a 'licence to print money'".
	My correspondent tells me that berth holders were given vouchers for 15 nights free of charge at any MDL marina. One berth holder went to an MDL marina in the Hamble and presented the vouchers as he was about to leave. He was told that had they known that vouchers were being used he would have been refused a berth when he arrived.
	I have been told of boat owners in marinas operated by MDL who are afraid to complain of overcharging or inadequate facilities because of real fears and actual experiences that they would lose berths in areas of high demand, although MDL denies that. But the fact remains that many owners feel they are being priced out of the water and cite a survey carried out by Yachting magazine showing that prices across the Channel can be three or four times lower for comparable facilities. As Sarah Norbury, the then editor of Yachting Monthly told a Carlton West Country news programme,
	"They're able to get away with it because there's no watchdog body, no marina watchdog, no fair rent Act for marinas so no checks or controls at all".
	It is in no one's interests that boat owners who are customers of British Waterways, MDL or any other operator should feel aggrieved over levels of charges and the way in which they increase. That is why I think this comment from Michael Thompson, Secretary of the Sunderland Berth Holders and Mooring Association, makes the case for an independent waterways regulator.
	"In this country just about everything from Water, Gas, Telecommunications, to the Prison Service have either a regulator or a review body to ensure that high standards are maintained, and the customer receives a value for money product. It is my personal belief Marinas should be inspected on a regular basis, and if proven that the current Marina Management fall short of the required standard they should lose the lease to administer the Marina. The lease should then be offered to other interested parties who will manage these marinas to the required standard".
	That is backed by Sue Burchett, who chairs the National Association of Boat Owners. She says:
	"What is needed is an independent watchdog which can look at restrictive practices, monopoly pricing and unfairness wherever they arise across Britain's waterways. Utility companies, the Post Office, and railways have regulators, such as OFWAT which protect their customers' interests. What about an "OFCUT" for the waterways?"
	Perhaps I should explain that in the parlance of the West Midlands we call the canals, "the cut".
	I am aware that the Office of Fair Trading can investigate alleged abuse of market share, monopoly or allegations of excessive prices. But that is a large hammer to use and a difficult and time-consuming job and route. When the National Association of Boat Owners asked the OFT to look into complaints in March of this year that British Waterways' mooring prices were unfair, though sympathetic and saying it was not reaching a final conclusion, the OFT added:
	"However, this does not appear to us to be a matter that is sufficiently promising to warrant the commitment of further resources by the office at this stage".
	A waterways regulator would have one job: to try to see fair play and encourage transparency and better relations between boat owners and those who enjoy our waterways and those who operate them. For the OFT, this is one job among far too many. Similarly, British Waterways' ombudsman scheme, though I accept absolutely that he is independent, is, I believe, too narrowly complaint-focused.
	I believe that the case for a waterways regulator is strong and compelling to ensure a proper balance between providers and users and an informed and independent oversight on all aspects of our inland waterways.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. The noble Lord has an intimate knowledge of waterways. Being associated with the Birmingham conurbation, where there is a mass of waterways which serve the local population and visitors and where, as the noble Lord said, there are less well off people involved, he makes a powerful case for a waterways regulator.
	I want to concentrate my remarks on different aspects from those referred to by the noble Lord, and in particular on regulation; indeed, the debate is about regulation. I have looked up some of the existing regulations which apply to inland waterways and canals and the functions of the British Waterways board in relation to those. Many come under the Transport Act 1962. The Secretary of State, for example, can transfer to the board all or part of a navigation authority, which I find interesting. He can transfer assets; promote and oppose Bills and promote research and development. His powers relate to charging. Borrowing limits apply; loans and treasury guarantees can be obtained. His powers relate also to the classification of waterways and, indeed, transport duties on goods and passenger services on the canals.
	The acquisition of land can occur. There are statutory powers, for example, on limitations on the transfer of water, and carrying powers. British Waterways has wide-ranging powers. The question is whether it is using those powers in a responsible way and to best effect. Certainly, I approve of the fact that there is financial assistance, for example, for moving freight from road to inland waterways. That must be a constructive function. Indeed, I am certainly concerned about non-capital grants, which are available. Indeed, it is important in any schemes promoted by British Waterways that those are related to environmental benefit. If we go along that path, grants to move transport from roads to canals is a constructive step. Of course, that would require investment in freight wharves.
	However, the issue in this debate, as the noble Lord, rightly raises, is one of mooring charges, marina operations and the companies involved in them. I shall not repeat what he has said. However, I take strong note of the fact that there are monopolies which do not appear to work in the public interest as far as concerns the users of canals. There seems to be inadequate control in that regard and the proposals of the noble Lord are of great interest.
	My knowledge of the canal system, certainly in the area with which I am familiar, relates to the Brecon and Monmouth canal, which is excellent for leisure and tourism, particularly with the construction of a terminal at the new Brecon Theatre. The downside—there is a downside—is that there appears to be a good deal of water extraction from the River Usk. The amount of water flowing down the River Usk that is transferred into the canal causes environmental concern, to say the least. In our area we should like British Waterways to be able to extend that canal down to Newport. In Wales, we would also welcome investment in the Neath Canal, for it to join with Swansea and the operations of the Llangollen Canal.
	The real black spot for us is the failure of British Waterways to develop the Montgomeryshire Canal to Newtown. People want its full restoration. We certainly want to know what the hold up is in developing that scheme. Is it the regulations, the lack of funds, or is it planning that is causing the problem? The Montgomeryshire Canal was an economic link, which must be restored to full working order. A good deal of money has already been spent on it.
	The balance of environmental considerations with economic opportunities has not always been well balanced. The canal runs out near Newtown. Indeed, there is concern that the Countryside Council for Wales has had some influence so far as concerns SSSIs to the detriment of the development of the canal. I realise that this House does not have direct control over the activities of the Countryside Council for Wales. I hope the Minister will recognise that I acknowledge that. I am merely describing the situation.
	I congratulate British Waterways on its document, Waterways for Wales, and on its commitment to sustainable development. But I cannot agree with British Waterways that it does not require or need more regulations; I believe it does. There is a clear need for regulations with regard to moorings and the letting of contracts to marina operators and with regard to the extraction of water from rivers.
	The issue of leakages from canals needs far tighter regulation. I have had to deal with some fairly serious cases of water appearing in people's houses due to inadequate maintenance of canals. That I believe is due to a lack of funds and perhaps priorities being skewed in different directions. Certainly, householders have had great problems. That needs to be sorted out.
	This debate is also about rivers. I am concerned about the sustainability of the river system and the serious pollution of rivers, whether from industry or agriculture. There is a need for more regulation. Of course in this respect the Environment Agency has responsibilities. Much of this ground was covered in the Water Bill. None the less, I believe that the sustaining of aquatic life, fisheries, bird life, the ecology of the river beds and the necessity of reviewing river navigations all need tightened-up regulations.
	Water quality compliance in rivers is particularly important. Regulations, for example, to secure certain pH levels in rivers would be constructive. Priorities for conflict resolution between different river users is very important. For example, the rights of fishermen versus access for canoeists need sorting out. That is a big issue on some rivers, which perhaps could be sorted out by the allocation of time to different aspects.
	We covered the territory of stages of main rivers and tributaries in the Water Bill. I do not wish to go over that. But tributary maintenance, specifically concerning flooding, is particularly important. Regulations for flood relief schemes would help. There is nothing better than to see a pristine clean river flowing through beautiful countryside. Sadly, that is not always the case, but the situation has improved greatly.
	Finally, on inland waterways and lakes, there is a big issue, for example, on the usage of power boats and whether or not they should be allowed on some waters. They need to be subject to greater controls with possibly the ability to remove them. There is no doubt that investment for tourism, the economy and the environment is there, but that better regulation will assist and move it on further.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, for giving us the opportunity to debate the subject. Like the noble Lord, I reiterate that we are not out, as it were, to get British Waterways, which largely has done a good job, particularly in view of the limited funds made available to it over many years.
	The use of boats for leisure is increasing very rapidly. As people get more time and as they live longer we can expect that use to continue to increase. What we seek tonight, as far as I can tell, is that marinas, whether on canals or on estuaries, should not be owned by people seeking to create monopolies or to charge monopoly prices. It is notable that British Waterways has been asked to charge "market prices". The Minister needs to make clear the difference between "market" and "monopoly" prices. That would make an extremely interesting subject for a thesis by some of my students. The definition between the two becomes very fine when the "market" price is pushed up, particularly when there is a shortage of supply.
	We also want to make clear that boats are not owned simply by the idle rich. One can go into the Library and read Yachting World and see pictures of boats with scantily clad women draped about all over the place, but that I submit is not typical of the kind of people we are talking about. Many people struggle financially to keep a boat going and high mooring fees are a considerable barrier to increasing boat ownership.
	While I am not necessarily in favour of a regulator, I am concerned about bodies such as Marina Developments Limited. It appears to be increasing its hold on scarce resources and extracting monopoly rents. There is a scarcity of space. That area needs attention. I ask the Minister in his summing-up to answer the question: if control of pricing cannot be exercised by the Office of Fair Trading, who is to exercise it in the absence either of a waterways regulator or by extending the powers of another regulator?
	I am very familiar with the actions of the Office of Fair Trading in respect of the bus industry. Its actions have been too late. Often people have gone bankrupt before anything has been done. It is too slow. It takes months and months to get around to a subject. Often its rulings are quite perverse in that it makes rulings which are quite contrary to what the general public want. In the case of buses, the general public want co-operation in terms of co-ordination of ticketing and timetables that work. The Office of Fair Trading strikes down all these arrangements as being anti-competitive. But that is a very narrow view of what competition is expected to deliver. I believe that competition is supposed to deliver better service to the public, not a theoretical notion which is adopted by the Office of Fair Trading.
	So I ask the Minister to address the issue. If the Office of Fair Trading is incompetent, are we going to abandon boat owners to the monopolist, or are we going to have some kind of regulation, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett?

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, for introducing this interesting debate. His speech slightly threw me because I had taken the subject in a broader sense. His Question asks the Government:
	"what they are doing to improve the regulation of the United Kingdom's rivers, canals and other inland waterways".
	It does not specify mooring charges, although they are a real issue on which I am glad that he has enlarged. I hope that he will not be disappointed that I shall touch on it only briefly before moving to other matters appertaining to regulation.
	I shall use my time to consider three issues. The first is that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, of setting charges, what is a monopoly, what is fair trade and what should be encouraged and what should not. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to that. Market pricing is seen as fair by some but not by others. Those setting those charges must obviously set them sensibly so that people can invest in their investment—if I can put it that way. I shall leave that question to the Minister.
	I now turn directly to British Waterways. It is aware of some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett—perhaps in common with others, I have received correspondence from it. It recognises that some customers have raised concerns about aspects of its process—dialogue and accountability in particular. I do not know whether the noble Lord has read it, but it produced a consultation document in July 2003, to which it is asking for responses by 17th October, and to which it will respond in turn in late November or December. So to an extent his point has already been taken up in that process. We ought to put that on record. It is aware that there is a need to ensure openness and accountability—it was criticised for their absence in the past. It is sometimes tempting to set up something new when what we already have may work but not be working well enough. I hope that we shall wait to see what happens before we jump to conclusions.
	I turn to the suggestion that there should be an ombudsman scheme: that someone should be put forward to deal with the regulator. I understand that the Inland Waterways Association, which goes wider than British Waterways, is not in favour of that. Perhaps the Minister will explain why when he responds to the debate. I do not know—and it is an obvious question—what are the pros and cons of the suggestion. I should be interested to hear about that.
	I then decided to consider the matter in a slightly wider context, because there other important issues to raise in the time I have been allotted, which I shall try not to overrun. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, touched on them. To me, regulation is most necessary when we have flooding. It seems silly to talk about flooding when we are all so dry at the moment and wishing for rain and rain again, but flooding from our rivers and canals has become a fairly regular problem that has caused human misery and damage.
	Following the most recent flooding disasters, there was talk of closer working between waterway authorities, local government and the Environment Agency. Was some formal regulation set up, or is it still an informal, ad hoc system? If so, who is the lead authority? We need to address that situation.
	Is the Minister satisfied that when rain eventually comes, flooding will not occur as it did last time? He will remember that it is not clean water about which people get so anxious; it is used, dirty, sewage water that causes such distress. Was there any outcome—whether regulatory or not—to the whole question of insurance for those people who were struck not just once by floods of sewage and soil in their homes? Will he clarify that, because so far as I am aware, it has not been clarified?
	I turn to another point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. Birmingham is not far from Leicester. We have canals in the country areas near Leicester and some good ones in Leicester city. As in Birmingham, one exciting development, which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I have discussed previously, has been the redevelopment of waste land around our canals; it is hugely important and brings life back to an inner city. The site that I mentioned then was a former scrap metal yard. It cost the government—we were in government then—about £7 million to purchase the site and about £8 million to clean it before we could do anything with it.
	My question is slightly obtuse: does the Waterways Authority have any input into planning? If so, is there any spin-off concerning the water, or is that a totally separate issue? I am not sure: again, it comes down to regulation and where one buck ends and another responsibility takes over.
	Other noble Lords have touched on the increase in leisure facilities. Is that not good? It is wonderful to see people enjoying not just walking or riding their bikes along the towpath but using longboats or sailing boats. A great interest in sailing has developed. I should like to raise the question of safety. I have a little place in Southwold in Suffolk. We have boats coming in and out: there is quite a busy, little, slightly informal marina. I know that the Southwold authorities were approached some years ago to find out whether they would allow a big marina to be established. Wisely, the burghers of Southwold said, "No, we like our marina as it is: slightly old-fashioned", and it has stayed that way.
	However, one recent cause of death has been jet skiing. I do not know if that occurs on canals, but it certainly does around our coastal waters and on our inner waterways. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have any regulatory systems in being, or whether, recognising the risk, they may be addressing that in future?
	Again on regulation, can the Minister clarify for us tonight the role that runs between the Environment Agency, the inland drainage boards, the flood defence committees, the riparian owners, anglers—there are lots of them along our rivers—businesses, which the noble Lord rightly raised, and those who use our estuaries? They are all very important issues. Once or twice, when discussing such matters previously, we have found that the buck gets passed, and there is no clear definition of where responsibility lies, and how it is organised.
	I shall now return to the Water Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, did not wish to go over ground covered previously; nor shall I. Since the Bill left the House, British Waterways has written to me—and, I suspect, my colleagues at the other end—raising some regulatory matters. I replied that it was a pity that it did not let us know about the matters when we were debating the Bill in the first place. However, the following points are important. The Minister may be aware of them.
	British Waterways seeks clarification of the term "navigable rivers". It also asks what would happen if it were to provide for the transfer from,
	"inland waters connected only to a water system or reservoir of the authority's",
	to,
	"the same water system or reservoir".
	That raises very important issues.
	The Bill uses the word "connected". Ministers have agreed that, as a basic principle, transfers from the supply reservoirs that are only connected to a navigation authority's water system shall not be licensable. In all earlier discussions between British Waterways and Defra, and in the consultation draft Bill, the word "connected" has been used. Will the Minister explain why the word "discharge" is now used and whether it has any different connotations?
	If the Minister cannot answer my next point today, I am happy for him to write to me. Clause 8 substitutes a new regime for small abstractors. A consequential amendment is the repeal of Section 62(2)(a) of the Water Resources Act 1991 by Schedule 7, Part 1, paragraph 6 in the Bill. British Waterways states:
	"The net effect is that there will be no control of small abstractors from the BW waters under water resource legislation. This could have a significant detrimental effect on BW's ability to fulfil its statutory navigation obligations, particularly in dry periods when the likelihood of such abstractions is at its highest".
	It is a very relevant issue on which there will have to be regulations.
	There are other issues, but I do not wish to go down that line. The points highlight the debates that we had during the passage of the Water Bill about where one jurisdiction starts and another one ends. Although, under the Bill, the Environment Agency is the body in total control—if my memory serves me correctly—there are outstanding issues that will no doubt be dealt with while the Bill is in another place. Perhaps it will be returned to us for approval, because such changes would alter the Bill as we debated it when it went through. However, those are all regulatory matters.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising his Question. I hope that he will forgive me for having made mine wider, but I think that tonight was an opportunity to do so. I know that the Minister will answer the noble Lord's specific problems, but, again, I thank him for raising the issue.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Corbett for initiating the debate, which got wider as it went on. In view of the indications that I was given of the noble Lord's concerns, most of my remarks will relate to the regulation of charging. I will try to respond, now or in writing, to the other issues raised.
	My noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Livsey and Lord Bradshaw, referred to the vital significance of our inland waterways network for regeneration, recreation and environmental purposes. They also referred to the exemplary role of British Waterways in delivering on all fronts over the past few years, including some aspects that present it with serious conflicts.
	One of the few unadulterated pleasures of being a Minister—there are not all that many, apart from attendance in your Lordships' House—were the four years in which I was responsible for waterways. I had a very good relationship with British Waterways, the Environment Agency and the navigation authorities generally. It is the combination of meeting different objectives, bringing together economic and social regeneration, creating environmental benefit and providing leisure and heritage pleasure to hundreds of thousands of people that makes waterways particularly important.
	There is a question about how the waterways are regulated. The noble Baroness is right in saying that there is a history of regulatory complexity as regards the number of people involved, and the terms of what regulations apply. Perhaps one day a government will be brave enough to look at the totality of waterways regulation and to bring it all together. The main themes and responsibilities are clear.
	However, we are dealing with a very diverse situation. About three quarters of the national system of inland waterways is run by public sector boards such as British Waterways, the Environment Agency and the Broads Authority.
	Marinas are the responsibility of a wide variety of bodies in the private and voluntary sectors. My noble friend Lord Corbett of Castle Vale also extended that to coastal marinas which are not included in those figures.
	Each navigation authority tends to calculate its mooring charges in a way that is appropriate to their location on a commercial basis. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, tempts me to move from what are market forces to what are monopoly forces. It is possible to move a boat, so market forces operate. On the other hand, if one were looking for a mooring for that night, it could be said to be a monopoly position. I do not think that that is the situation, but we must examine whether the regulations are appropriate. I recognise that there have been a number of complaints about mooring charges in British Waterways and others and in the private sector coastal marinas as well.
	British Waterways have, as my noble friend pointed out, an instruction to charge commercial rates wherever they can and they have operated that policy, which is now a clearer policy. The Environment Agency has fewer actual moorings and I am not aware of whether they have been the subject of similar complaints—nor have the Broads—but there have been some complaints about private operators. I will return to the subject of coastal marinas later because they are dealt with by a different structure of legislation, which largely relates to ports and harbours.
	My noble friend called for a regulator—presumably similar to Ofgem. When we use a regulator—in the strict sense of the word—it tends to be in relation to privatised utilities. Waterways are run partly by a nationalised corporation (British Waterways), partly by an agency of government (the Environment Agency), partly by a different form of NDPB (the Broads, which is more or less a national park) and partly by the private sector. So it is actually quite difficult to see how the concept of Ofcom or Ofgem could apply in this area. In that sense the situation is not a monopoly nor is it what was once a total public responsibility.
	As I said, British Waterways is charging commercial prices. I know that the claim is that it is using its dominant position in the market to charge those prices. However, it is also true that British Waterways needs to cover its costs. It receives a grant from the Government of roughly £60 million a year at the moment, mainly to deal with the backlog mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, which relates to underfunding for two to three decades, which it is gradually getting rid of. British Waterways says that it costs about £200 million to run and maintain the waterways. The contribution of moorings towards that cost is only 2 per cent of its total revenue. Boat licences are another 5 per cent—a total of £14 million. That is not a huge contribution, but it is reasonable that those who use the waterways on a consistent basis make some such contribution. In one sense, one could argue that the boat owners were quite substantially subsidised by both the Government and other users of the waterways.
	Mooring charges vary considerably. In Birmingham, which my noble friend Lord Corbett knows very well, charges to moor a narrow boat can vary from around £700 a year to £1,200 for the glory of Birmingham. That is not a bad price for having a pied-a-terre in the middle of Birmingham. In London it costs a few bob more. Costs could go up to £4,000. However, even that is not bad for a mooring on the Thames or the inland waterways of the London area. We are talking about what are, broadly speaking, reasonable charges. Although there have been higher than usual increases recently, they have been in single figures. We are not talking about huge hikes in figures. The average increase in 2003 was 5.6 per cent, for example.
	In terms of the monopoly position for British Waterways, it owns only around a quarter of the moorings on its own system, which could hardly be called a dominant market position. It is an important market operator but it is not right to say that British Waterways has artificially created market forces by increasing rents charged to private operators. In any case, the rents that private operators pay to British Waterways are only a small part of the private operators and marinas' costs—they do not directly affect their charges. Indeed, the rents can be revised only at five-yearly intervals. There is a not unreasonable system working, although it is clear that some people feel aggrieved by the levels and increase in charges.
	We do not tell British Waterways how to make its charges; that is a matter for the board. However, we expect it to charge in a way that is consistent with the benefits received, rather than charging what the market will bear. The framework agreement refers to commercial charges.
	I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said—or implied—that the Office of Fair Trading did not operate in that area. In fact, the OFT could intervene, and cases could be referred to it involving excessive or anti-competitive pricing in any market without a dedicated regulator. The OFT is the main port of call, and it has a powerful range of sanctions.
	There is also the waterways ombudsman, who deals specifically with British Waterways. It is a slightly anomalous position, but it provides an appeal against maladministration by British Waterways only. The ombudsman can deal with complaints about the method of determining a market rate, about inadequate consultation and about the way in which new rates are introduced. So, there is an independent system.
	There are concerns about how independent the ombudsman is. As the noble Baroness said, we are now engaging in a consultation on whether we should change the situation. The options are not as radical as creating a regulator, as my noble friend Lord Corbett of Castle Vale suggested. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, the main user group—the Inland Waterways Association—was not in favour of that, but it is in favour of a more effective appeals system, which is what we are consulting on. The closing date is 17th October. The views expressed in the debate and, even more so, those expressed in writing will be gratefully received by my right honourable friend Alun Michael, who is now in charge of waterways.
	The proposals are to establish a more streamlined and responsive complaints procedure; create an enhanced role for the waterways ombudsman that is transparently independent from British Waterways and can meet the standards of independence set by the professional body, the British and Irish Ombudsman Association; set up a new national consultative framework, representing all significant groups and bodies with an interest in waterways; and improve procedures for consultation in line with the relevant Cabinet Office code of practice.
	Having said all that, I must say that the British Waterways network and the private networks and marinas cost a significant amount to run, and somebody will always complain about the cost. However, the new procedures should, subject to the consultation, provide an enhanced method of ensuring fair play. There is also the fall-back of the OFT.
	The coastal marinas—my noble friend Lord Corbett of Castle Vale referred to MDL—are subject to different sorts of legislation. Again, contrary to what, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, implied, they are subject to OFT rules. People may choose to go into one harbour or marina or another. If they are looking for a short stay and it is late at night, Torbay may be the only place that they can go. It is important that such places are seen as commercial operators and not really part of the public sector, but they should operate reasonable procedures. The OFT can control unfair, excessive or anti-competitive practices, as it can on inland waterways.
	There is a lot of regulation on waterways of all sorts, and some of it—outside of pricing—was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. There is or is about to be reasonable control of abuse of the market position by British Waterways, other navigation authorities, marina operators and so forth.
	Some non-pricing issues were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, referred to the Montgomeryshire Canal. I am straying into the territory of the Welsh authorities, who deal with British Waterways on that issue. I understand that they work with the local authorities and the restoration trust. There is a money issue and an environmental issue. It will cost tens of millions of pounds to restore the Montgomeryshire Canal. Some of that money will need to be raised outside British Waterways own resources; for example, a possible grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund, which has done so much to help improve waterways elsewhere in the system. In addition, there are some conflicts with other environmental considerations, which will need to be borne in mind.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the position as regards flood defence. Co-operation between the Environment Agency and British Waterways is very close, but the Environment Agency is the lead authority for flood defence on all rivers and is responsible for bringing all organisations together. Therefore, the Environment Agency works closely with British Waterways and other navigation authorities.
	The noble Baroness also asked about the role of British Waterways in relation to planning. In many regeneration issues, the fact that British Waterways owns the land is the catalyst for a regeneration project. It is partners with the private sector and the local authority in dealing with that, but the whole package is subject to planning. British Waterways would be a statutory consultee in that planning process, as would the Environment Agency.
	Slightly further off-beam, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to jet-skis. I am unaware of a significant problem on the canals, although they are probably banned in most canal situations. In estuary and coastal areas, there is a problem, but navigation, estuary and ports authorities can make their own bylaws in relation to jet-skis.
	However, that is part of the wider problem of injuries and deaths. An awful lot of people are injured and drowned in our waterways system. Jurisdiction in that area is somewhat confused. Reverting back to my previous hat as health and safety Minister, the Health and Safety Executive undertook an assessment of all the different responsibilities for water safety within the country, for which it brought in a number of different authorities.
	I have spoken for as long as is allowed. There are a number of issues relating to the Water Bill, on which I shall write to the noble Baroness because it is conceivable that it will come back to us. There were rather specific references, which neither I nor my officials could immediately take on board tonight. Perhaps we can discuss at another time; I shall read the noble Baroness's speech in Hansard if I need any clarification. However, I undertake to answer her questions on the Water Bill in writing.
	Subject to that, my thanks to my noble friend for raising the debate. I hope that he has been, at least to some degree, reassured. We all recognise the need to ensure that the waterways operate fairly for all users and all beneficiaries.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.33 p.m.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.28 to 8.33 p.m.]

Anti-social Behaviour Bill

House again in Committee.
	Clause 26 [Parenting orders in respect of criminal conduct and anti-social behaviour]:
	[Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 not moved.]
	Clause 26 agreed to.
	Clause 27 [Parenting orders: supplemental]:
	[Amendments Nos. 137 and 138 not moved.]
	Clause 27 agreed to.
	Clause 28 agreed to.
	Clause 29 [Interpretation and consequential amendment]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 139:
	Page 25, line 21, leave out "27" and insert "28"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The amendment extends the interpretation of various terms used in the clauses concerning parenting contracts and orders in respect of the criminal conduct and anti-social behaviour to include Clause 28, which concerns parenting orders appeals. This simply corrects an earlier drafting error that omitted to refer to the clause. It is a technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 140 to 144 not moved.]
	Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 30 [Dispersal of groups and removal of persons under 16 to their place of residence]:

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 145:
	Page 26, line 7, leave out paragraph (a).

Baroness Walmsley: In moving Amendment No. 145, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 148 and 158, which stand in my name. I support Amendment No. 159, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwin.
	The Committee may remember from Second Reading in this House and from the proceedings in another place that we on these Benches object to the whole of Part 4. My noble friends and I will, in the main, address our arguments on that when we come to the clause stand part debates. For now, I seek to address by amendment some of the most objectionable details of the clauses in Part 4.
	Amendment No. 145 seeks to amend Clause 30(1) by deleting paragraph (a) on the grounds that it is unnecessary, superfluous—if that is not tautology—and too widely drawn. If individuals within a particular locality have been intimidated or harassed, this should form the basis of conventional criminal proceedings. Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 criminalise threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour. So the Government already have that tool.
	As with the Sexual Offences Bill, this is another example of the Government bringing in new legislation in order to be seen to be doing something rather than making full use of the toolkit already in place. Subsection (1) should apply only when there is persistent and significant anti-social behaviour. This is already covered in paragraph (b).
	Amendment No. 148 concerns the period during which an authorisation can be enforced. The Bill refers to a six-month period. We believe that, given the ease with which an authorisation can be issued, this brings a danger that designated areas will, to all intents and purposes, be subject to permanent authorisation notices—no go areas. This is neither appropriate nor does it show any confidence in these new laws having much effect. A six-week period, with the possibility of renewal, should provide sufficient time to try out these powers and to see whether they are successful or not in reducing the anti-social behaviour complained of in the locality.
	Amendment No. 158 was suggested to us by the LGA, which is concerned that local authorities would only be consulted about a dispersal order and would not have to agree to it. Ensuring that a dispersal order came into force only with the agreement of the chief executive would ensure that enforcement action was complemented by a range of other actions to address the anti-social behaviour in the area. The Minister tells us that of course local authorities would be consulted, but it would be very helpful if it was on the face of the Bill that they had to agree to the action.
	I have heard of a number of very creative ways in which local authorities are bringing groups of people together to understand each other and the effect of each other's behaviour. A number of noble Lords went to Camden recently and heard what the authority is doing there. Simply dispersing people is not enough, and authorities such as Camden know it. They know that they have a lot to offer in this process.
	Local authorities have key joint responsibility for the planning and delivery of local crime reduction, together with the police service under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The principle of joint agreement is key to the spirit of this partnership working, so it is vital that full agreement is on the face of the Bill and not simply assumed.
	Finally, I will not say much about the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, because I am quite sure she will address it very articulately in a few minutes. But I heartily agree with her reasons for wanting to include the local community, which I am sure must involve listening to children—always a good thing. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 are also in this group. I think we should get them and all the amendments relevant to this group debated on the Floor of the House before we are much further forward.
	I agree very much with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that people are failing to use the toolkit of the existing law. If that is the case, one cannot help but wonder if they will use this law. That is one of those great hypothetical questions to which there is no answer; I would not dream of asking the Minister for the answer, because I know perfectly well that she could not answer it either. We will find out only as time passes.
	My two amendments are quite small. The first, which is very small indeed, would leave out "and" and insert "or". The Bill applies where a relevant officer has reasonable grounds for believing:
	"(a) that any members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed as a result of the presence or behaviour of groups of two or more persons in public places . . . and,
	(b) that anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem in the relevant locality".
	In a sense, we had this debate much earlier in the Bill's proceedings. The question is whether "and" is an appropriate word or whether "or" is. We think that "or" would be preferable if the Bill is to mean what it says. I accept that we are talking about a significant increase in the sanctions available.
	A relevant officer has to be a senior officer—a superintendent or above—and must make his judgment in the light of all the circumstances, which he will know very well, including the surrounding police area. These are all points that the Minister made in a previous debate. I still think that such a person is capable of making an appropriate judgment. However, it may be asking too much of him to make such a judgment when the behaviour of groups of people causes difficulty for the public in an area and anti-social behaviour is also a significant and persistent problem. If one is elderly one may have to go out in the evening because one may have forgotten to do one's shopping during daylight, and the shops are now open till nine or ten or eleven o'clock at night. As we get older—and I am susceptible to this—we have lapses, and we may suddenly find that we are without something essential, either for our evening meal or perhaps for breakfast in the morning. If one is in that situation and there are groups of rowdy youngsters outside, it can be quite a nerve-bending experience to walk down to the local corner shop and back again. That is what this is all about.
	I know that this is an anti-social behaviour Bill, but in this particular instance "and" is perhaps a little more than is necessary and "or" would be preferable.
	Amendment No. 147 would remove the requirement for,
	"a significant and persistent problem in the relevant locality",
	in addition to intimidation. That is another way of stating the same thing. We do not see why anti-social behaviour should have to occur more than once before the police can do anything about it. If a policeman on the street sees anti-social behaviour building up, it is offensive even if it is the first time. They should not have to wait until it is a persistent problem in the area before it is considered offensive. It is offensive.
	Those are the reasons why we tabled the amendments. I hope that the Government will consider them. I have no doubt that the Minister will give me a wonderfully lucid and plausible response, but whether she will satisfy me is another matter.

The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich: I support strongly the amendments and the general concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. There is clearly widespread concern about Part 4 of the Bill, which is echoed by a large number of organisations—exactly the list given by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, earlier. It might almost be called the "Sharp list", in referring to it in shorthand. It is a long and detailed list of people who work with children and families.
	Those organisations make it quite clear that there is no question of condoning crime or disruptive behaviour or underestimating the effect that it has on other people. The crucial question is how anti-social behaviour is dealt with and prevented and how it is addressed when it occurs. This part of the Bill is crucial to that matter. It revisits the existing provisions to impose area-based child curfew notices, first introduced under Section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and amended under the 2001 Act. The power has, apparently, never been used, which is an interesting comment on it, especially given that the provisions attempt to extend it.
	The key point is that the power was brought in originally to protect children, not to restrict them. The new Bill reverses that and starts with the presumption that we view children as a problem rather than being in need of protection. That is a different approach, assumption and attitude.
	Paragraph 4 of the Explanatory Notes says:
	"The Bill is designed to ensure that the police have the appropriate powers to deal with serious anti-social behaviour".
	However, the clause goes way beyond that. This is a provision for a situation in which no crime has actually been committed—that is the point, is it not? In the light of that, Part 4 feels like an unnecessary extension of an existing power and introduces an unwelcome punitive element that will not help to deal with the root problem or the causes of anti-social behaviour. It also raises the question of human rights, in terms of the unnecessary intrusion on the liberty of an individual, to allow a constable to give orders to someone when there is no threat of crime or danger to safety. That question has clearly been raised as well. So there is a whole question about the presence of this part in the Bill.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: It is appropriate that I should speak now to Amendment No. 159 as it follows on from matters that have arisen in the debate. This amendment is in my name and the names of my noble friend Lady David, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I begin by thanking my noble friend the Minister for the prolific correspondence on issues raised at Second Reading and for her obvious concern to consult on the Bill. She has been most assiduous in that and it has been very useful.
	I, too, have some problems with this clause, and no doubt there will be much discussion about it at a later date. I am particularly concerned about the police having the power to disperse groups of two or more young people and to remove young people under 16 who are unsupervised in public places from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. to their place of residence. I think that the provision is full of problems, both practical and ethical. I do not condone crime or disturbance by young people, and I know that some communities have problems of serious misbehaviour among young people, as has been said already, but I believe that community problems are often best resolved by involving communities, including young people.
	It is clear from numerous surveys that young people want recreational facilities where they can meet friends and enjoy themselves. We do not have enough such facilities. Surely we should develop more, so that young people do not have to hang around so much in public places, before we set punitive laws that may well add to and increase confrontation between the police and young people and local communities and young people.
	The Home Office White Paper Respect and Responsibility—taking a stand against anti-social behaviour states:
	"to tackle anti-social behaviour we must ensure that the community sets clear standards of behaviour",
	and that,
	"local people must be encouraged to win back their communities and encouraged by local and central Government to do so".
	I think that that is the crux of the matter. Local child curfew notices under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 were set out by the Government as a protective measure for children and young people and as a support to parents, as I think was hinted at by the right reverend Prelate. The measures here seem to view young people as a problem rather than as being in need of protection.
	The Hamilton Child Safety Initiative concluded that the police cannot solve community problems alone. There has been a welcome commitment by the Government to listening to and involving young people. The Children and Young People's Unit document, Learning to Listen: core principles for the involvement of children and young people, states that better outcomes for communities are encouraged by drawing on contributions to shape services.
	Many children's organisations—I will not go into them all again—are seriously concerned about the new powers under Part 4 of the Bill. My amendment seeks to ensure that members of the local community, including young people and their families, are at least involved in the decision making about dispersing groups.

The Earl of Listowel: I rise to support Amendment No. 159, which was so eloquently spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and to which I have also put my name, and to second the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I am concerned that this proposal may inadvertently increase local tensions. Although I respect the reasons why the Government wish to introduce the provision and recognise the difficulties, I think that this is a constructive amendment. I remember attending weekly meetings at a hostel for 16 to 23 year-olds run by Centrepoint. At the weekly meetings the young people discussed the way in which the hostel was run. The hostel curfew was discussed and, as a result of that discussion, it was raised by one hour. The young people knew, however, that the curfew would be strictly applied and that if they breached it they would be in serious trouble. They accepted that because they had discussed the matter and had agreed to it.
	I hope that the Government will regard the measure that we are discussing as a constructive amendment to their proposals. I look forward to the Minister's response. I hope that it will sugar a rather bitter pill.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I, too, rise to support my noble friend and the group of amendments concerning the dispersal of groups and the associated conditions. That matter causes these Benches great concern, not to speak of the concern of many other bodies and organisations in this country whose knowledge, experience and expertise should not be ignored. I include here all the leading children's organisations, the Sharp list and legal opinion, particularly in relation to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Convention on Human Rights. I am no legal expert but it should surely give us pause for thought when such fundamental concerns about where this legislation might be taking us are being expressed, however well intentioned the motives behind the legislation might be.
	The issues which give greatest pause are that dispersal can take place if any member of the public is intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed merely as a result of the presence of two or more people, and that such a presence is merely likely to result in intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress. Nothing need have actually happened; the offence is simply to be there.
	I refer particularly here to the legal opinion on the human rights status of the Bill which was sought from Anthony Jennings QC of Matrix Chambers. He describes the provisions in this clause as "breathtaking"—not an adjective commonly used by sober lawyers—and notes that even the Government concede that the clause involves potential breaches of Articles 5, 8, 10 and 11 of the ECHR. He describes a dispersal order under these circumstances as "a nationwide curfew" particularly on young people under 16 who are not under the effective control of a parent and asks how the presence of such a child can be categorised as "serious anti-social behaviour". At its extremes he asks, what about the teenager walking home from a violin lesson after 9 p.m. or the 15 year-old girl suspicious of someone in uniform asking her to come away with him? His conclusion is that,
	"any infringement of a Convention right must not destroy the very essence of that right. No public interest can justify the destruction of the essence of a right".
	The important thing is that the powers can be exercised although the child has done nothing wrong. Not only are these powers frighteningly—and this is my word—draconian, but carry in their wake the potential, as we have already discussed, for real trouble in the future in terms of damaged community relations, alienation of the young, racial tensions and all the features of our society which we must avoid if we are to achieve the positive social behaviour we all seek. We know and understand how young children can be caught up in and risk being involved in ASB simply by being around with, say, an older sibling but this is not the way to protect them.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is one of those points in the Bill where we have to begin to think of what I would generally wrap together as real world situations. I say that because all of those who have spoken in the debate so far are, like myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, motivated by the finest of intentions. We are ultimately trying to give some power back to the community. We all recognise that there is a problem. This part of the Bill tries to deal with that problem in what I would argue is a measured and proportionate way.
	I have the greatest respect for the line of argument taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, on a concern for human rights. It comes not only from good intentions, but from the right sort of community sense and spirit. However, we also have to pay attention to the human rights of those who suffer harassment over time. As I listened, my mind was drawn back to the time when, as leader of my local authority, I was getting regular complaints from part of my ward. It was a very respectable part of Brighton as it happens—not a council estate—so no one need jump to conclusions about the character of the area that I represented.
	Each and every night throughout much of one particularly long summer, congregations of young people on the streets undoubtedly caused distress and disturbance to those living in the neighbourhood. The best that the local police and I as a very active councillor—I took great interest in my ward—could offer was logging the activity, making a complaint to the environmental health team, which was concerned about noise nuisance, and advising residents to ensure that they informed their local community constable about what they thought might be public order breaches.
	The issue was aired publicly and there were discussions with council staff and local police officers and at a very senior level within the division. However, all that did not provide that community with the protection or a tool in a toolkit that it could use to change the character of its streets in that neighbourhood. It is such situations that, in a sense, we are trying to grapple with in the Bill.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: From what did the people living in the area want to be protected? Was it criminal offences, or simply youngsters in the street?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: They felt—one has to respect that the views came from constituents—that they were being harassed and threatened by the presence of a large number of people. The age band was fairly wide. They felt that the presence of those people together on the streets as I have described was likely to lead to criminal acts. The responses of the agencies involved were not able to provide them with something that they could use to assist them to reclaim their neighbourhood and their streets. That is an important consideration. I set that in the context of the debate, because it is a very important debate.
	The group of amendments is curious. It includes amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat Members of the Committee that come from one direction, but also the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that comes from another direction and deals with the and/or issue.
	We have tried to strike a balance. Our strategy—the Bill and particularly these clauses—is part of wider government initiatives. We went over that issue at some length in our discussions and deliberations the other evening. The issue is not all about being punitive, but about being constructive as well. My noble friend Lady Scotland or I drew attention to the extensive range of government programmes that provide the sorts of recreational facilities referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. The provisions are therefore part of a broader constructive approach and they should not be seen in isolation.
	Nor are we saying that there is a problem with young people. We recognise and understand that there are many young people with different lifestyles coming from different backgrounds. However, we must accept that sometimes young people—and I am a father of teenagers—can represent a problem to others. It is right to ensure that we have the powers to deal with the problem in a way that is sometimes community disciplinarian. That is at the core of some of our measures.
	Having made those initial comments, I want to go through the points in turn. Amendment No. 145, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, seeks to delete the condition that members of the public in the area must have suffered intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress. In a sense, it is puzzling, but, in the context of the dislike coming from Members on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, I understand why it has been moved.
	Amendment No. 146 gives the senior officer the power to give an authorisation in areas where people have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed, or that anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem. Amendment No. 147 seeks to take out the requirement that these powers can be exercised only in an area where anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem. There, the noble Lord, Dixon-Smith, is trying to broaden the scope of the Bill's measures.
	The Government believe that both conditions should apply as a firm test. These are targeted powers, aimed at areas where groups hang around and where anti-social behaviour is a particular problem. In short, we want this power to be targeted at areas where there are particular problems.
	We have heard of concerns about individuals innocently going through an area and being swept up by the measures which are proposed. I would put the argument the other way round. The Government are concerned about the presence in some of our communities of those who want to stir up racial hatred and distress. I would argue that these measures could well be used in circumstances in which those groups are congregating in vulnerable communities—perhaps previously in places such as Oldham or Burnley which experienced that. The powers would be extremely useful in the toolkit of the local community concerned, the police or the local authority. I would ask noble Lords to think of the importance of these measures in that context, too.
	Amendment No. 148 seeks to limit the duration of the authorisation to six weeks. It was argued most ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, as ever, that it would be renewed. I take that point, but we believe that we have struck the right balance. That is why we believe that six months is appropriate. We want the local police to be able to use this power as part of a strategy for dealing with anti-social behaviour in their area. They need time for the strategy to work. They do not need the interruption of six-weekly renewals. They need to have a firm position—one that is understood and clearly acknowledged in the community.
	We do not believe that the police need to have the power indefinitely, and that is why we believe that six months strikes the right balance between the two. We recognise that circumstances may change and that authorisation may no longer be appropriate. That is why Clause 31(6) makes provision for authorisation to be withdrawn.
	Amendment No. 158 suggests that the police should seek the agreement of the local council before granting an authorisation. We agree that consultation with the local council is essential if the power is to be used as part of a local strategy for dealing with anti-social behaviour. But we have to take on board operational considerations. I believe that if the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, or perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, were in their places, they would reflect on that, too.
	Local authorities and the police already work together closely in local crime and disorder reduction partnerships, and we expect consultation on authorising these powers to be part of that process. However, we believe that the police are the correct agency to lead this power and that they should be able to act if they consider that the powers are necessary to reclaim an area. That is what we are talking about. We are keen to ensure that bureaucracy related to the use of the power is kept to a minimum.
	Amendment No. 159 seeks to ensure that the local community is consulted before an authorisation is granted. As I said a moment ago, consultation is at the heart of that. We agree that the local community should be involved in tackling anti-social behaviour in its area. My guess and surmise is that, as in the example that I gave and in other examples which I am sure we can all give, it will be the local community that comes forward and demands that the powers are exercised.
	However, as a corollary to that, we would not necessarily want to extend the authorisation process by building in an obligation to consult the local community. But we shall ensure—this is where I believe that it is best put—that the code of practice, issued under Clause 34 of the Bill, gives advice on consultation with the local community. Indeed, we expect that the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which include representatives from the police, the council and the local community, will want to engage with the community to determine whether there are areas in their locality where the use of the powers would be beneficial.
	We agree that it is essential that local communities know that the powers are being used in their area. That is why Clause 31(3) ensures that publicity is given to an authorisation. We consider that clause to be very important. We want people to understand the import of exactly what we are trying to achieve with this piece of legislation and its value and importance in terms of enabling residents sometimes—no doubt in extreme circumstances—to reclaim their community. Ultimately, this is about giving power back to people in those communities so that they may have self-confidence and security. We consider those things to have primacy in this issue and in this debate.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: In my village of Gresford, the War Memorial Trust owns some 18 acres of land. We have a new sports hall, which is used for all kinds of community activities. We have two football pitches, a cricket pitch, tennis courts, a children's playground, two bowls greens and even somewhere to play billiards and snooker. We have the lot.
	Across the road is the youth club. We, as the trustees, received a letter from someone who lives in the same street as the youth club. It said: "I am very concerned that when the youth club finishes, young people spill out and stand in the street next to my house. What we would like the trustees to do is to ensure that there is some way of getting them over to the sports facilities and making them play games and using the facilities that you are providing".
	The trustees of the trust—there are approximately 30 of them—who represent the whole community, treated that request with some amusement. But that is what is behind this legislation. The Government are proposing that the police should start to manage people. I believe it was interesting that, in illustrating his point, the Minister referred to the posher part of Brighton, where the inhabitants were upset because young people were standing about in the street—

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way briefly. I would not wish that description to take too much of a hold in this debate. I believe the residents of that particular part of Brighton would be amused at the description that the noble Lord used. My old ward was full of honest, hard-working folk, who had aspirations to improve, as we all do, and I am sure that they would be best recognised in those terms.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps that could be corrected in the local newspaper: the Minister referred to "the not-so-posh" part of Brighton. The people who have aspirations, the social climbers of Brighton, to whom the Minister referred, were concerned at the people who were standing outside their house. He took the trouble to explain that this was not a housing estate. What he wants in the Bill is to have the police manage people so that they are moved from this area into the housing estates, no doubt from which they come.
	When that is seen in these terms, we see the essential illiberality of these provisions. In this country we have always believed that it is an unwarranted intrusion upon people's liberty to move them on if they are not committing a criminal offence or if there is no imminent likelihood of a breach of the peace. We ask the police not to tell people where to go within our communities; we ask them to investigate and to prevent crime but not to push people about. That is at the heart of this part of the Bill. That is why we on these Benches oppose it so much.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I find myself wanting to come to the rescue of the Minister and defend the Government on this particular matter. There is a danger of illiberality and autocratic oppressive action by the police. However, there is a real problem of anti-social behaviour, which is why I believe that the word "and" is necessary. It reduces the number of occasions which will qualify for this kind of drastic action. There has to be harassment, intimidation and alarm and distress caused and it has to be in the context of ongoing problems in that particular place, not just one group of exuberant young people on one occasion who are a bit of a nuisance, but serious problems against a background of ongoing irritation, oppression and unpleasantness for people who live or work in that place.
	Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is wrong to want "and" replaced by "or". I want the "and" to remain. That will mean that these powers will be used less frequently. I also believe that there is a serious issue here. It is no good pretending that it will just go away if we are nice to people. There are occasions when this kind of behaviour has become really quite intimidating and unpleasant and we need legislation to deal with it.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, says that we have provision for dealing with subsection (1)(a). We have, but that will be used in particular cases where appropriate. This is a new piece of legislation needed for a new situation which has arisen. I find myself wanting to support the Minister. Although I understand the purpose of the amendments, I believe they are misguided. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, did not say who the people would be from the local community. I believe that that sort of provision is properly made in the code of practice. I support the Government on this issue.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank noble Lords from all parts of the House who supported my amendment, in particular the right reverend Prelate—not the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford!
	The Minister started off by saying that we are speaking of a situation that exists in the real world. I hope he does not suggest that those who support the amendments do not live in the real world. We have great concerns about the human rights of residents. However, we are concerned about their right to have public services which work in the long term. I am not just moving things away to be sorted out in the short term. The human rights of society are not enhanced when we undermine the rights of individual, young, impressionable people who have done nothing wrong; rather, that undermines their confidence in the law at a time when they are forming their impressions of the fairness of the law. In the long term that is not a good thing.
	The Minister said that local people want power. What about the powers of persuasion? Many things are being done by creative local authorities working with members of the community, empowering them, and working with young people, not against them. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, put his finger on the button when he spoke of getting the agreement of young people, which works in such situations.
	I thank the Minister for his comments on the issue of the length of time that a dispersal order should be put in place. I am afraid that I still believe that six weeks will concentrate the minds of those who need to address the underlying problems of young people with nothing to do gathering on street corners and intimidating other people. It may be a nuisance if they have to keep going back for a renewal, but perhaps it will be the kind of prod that makes them do something that will work in the long term.
	On the local authority having to give agreement, agreement means accountability and ownership. The local authority actually represents local people. They voted for it. Therefore, if we want to give power back to the people, asking for the local authority's agreement is not unreasonable.
	However, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. We shall take away and consider his remarks, but we may very well return to this issue later in the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 146 to 148 not moved.]

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 149:
	Page 26, line 18, leave out ", or is likely to result,"

Baroness Walmsley: In moving Amendment No. 149, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 150 and 153 in my name and support Amendment No. 155 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
	Amendment No. 149 is intended to ensure that the order to disperse is proportionate to the problem—a concern highlighted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as has been mentioned. We want to ensure that the power to disperse will be available only where it is clear that intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress has actually taken place, not just that someone thinks it might, as one or two noble Lords mentioned when dealing with the previous group. Therefore, this amendment removes the words "or is likely to result".
	In its scrutiny of the Bill the JCHR commented that,
	"the potential intrusion on private life and liberty is so extensive and the benefits in any case likely to be so speculative that it might be difficult to establish either in general or in specific cases that the powers granted under clause 29 of the Bill will or would be used only when it was proportionate to a pressing social need. A constable or community support officer who considers using these powers will be in a difficult position, without much guidance from the legislation as to when and how he or she should exercise them".
	That does not sound like a vote of confidence. This really gets to the heart of our objection to this part of the Bill. And we are not alone; all the children's charities agree with us. It is not proportionate to remove someone from an area or take them home if they are simply there. If they are committing a crime while there, as I said earlier, there are already powers to deal with that.
	Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 make the area for the authorisation much more specific than it is in the Bill. "Locality" can mean a very big area of land—a whole town centre. The present drafting makes it too easy for a constable to demand that a group leaves the whole of a locality, even if that is excessive. The area from which the group must disperse should be more clearly specified by the officer and this should appear on the face of the Bill.
	Amendment No. 152 reduces the period of time for which a person is banned from returning to a specified area from 24 to eight hours. Given that the purpose is to disperse the group, it is not necessary to prevent a person coming back to the area the next day— 23.5 hours later. Eight hours is much more reasonable, especially given that these situations normally arise at night.
	Amendment No. 153 reduces the period of banned time from the period from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m., which we believe to be excessive, to the period from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. The current Bill would prevent young people from carrying out a paper round, which is surely to be encouraged as long as it is done safely.
	I also support Amendment No. 155, of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. It is not good enough to allow a police officer to take a child home even if he thinks he may come to a modicum of harm. The test should be any harm, not significant harm. The whole issue of taking children home also has human rights as well as child protection implications. I know that my noble friend Lady Linklater of Butterstone has great concerns about that. The police's approach to young children out in the street late at night should be from the point of view of child protection. Those are children at risk and the police should have the responsibility to treat them as such and work with other relevant agencies to ensure their welfare.
	Although we understand the Minister's concern to catch potential offenders while they are young to divert them from the path that leads them into the criminal justice system, this part of the Bill has not been fully thought through. Perhaps the Minister would explain how the measure would fit into the system to protect children. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I tabled Amendments Nos. 154 to 156 and 160, which are grouped. Amendment No. 154, a simple little amendment on which I hope that the Government will at the least give assurances, would leave out "6" and insert "5". It was tabled for the simple reason that many young lads start their paper rounds between 5 and 6 a.m. As the Bill is drafted, even if they had no nefarious intent, technically a policeman could pack them off home. That is unreasonable. If the Government give me an absolute assurance that the police would never act against a boy with a sack of papers over his shoulder, I shall be content. However, I thought that I should make that significant point, which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also picked up.
	Amendment No. 155 deals with the question of taking a child home when he may receive harm. Frankly, I find it appalling that a policeman might take a child home when he might receive any harm, but how do we define significant harm? I do not know what is significant harm. In my experience, from wherever you are standing, there is always someone who is worse off and someone who is better off than you. If significant harm is always something worse, it is a question of where you start from. That applies to health, age and everything else.
	In this instance, the adjective is inappropriate. We are talking about a known risk—we can do nothing about an unknown risk. If there is a known risk that if taken home, the child will be liable to harm, the idea that the harm must be significant is a difficult concept. I should rather the word were removed.
	Amendment No. 156 would insert the words:
	"'relevant locality' means that area which the constable believes is reasonable bearing in mind the number of people and the circumstances".
	The provision is all about designating areas with the agreement of local authorities. Later, we shall ask for the magistrates' courts also to be involved. But unless that designated area is small and tightly defined, the relevant area for the purposes of moving people on may be smaller than the designated area. There should be an element of discretion. Amendment No. 156 would provide that.
	Amendment No. 160 is significant. Wherever action is taken to move people on, it is essential—I stress that—that it be recorded.
	At the moment, that requirement is not in the Bill. Again, the Minister may assure me that the police would have to record that information in the normal course of duty. However, it is not required under the Bill. The Committee should require an answer to that issue. The idea that someone could move people on without the incident being recorded, with the result that nobody would know that it had happened, is intolerable. That applies particularly when dealing with persistent anti-social behaviour, as it is very important to know when such behaviour is persisting, and even more important to know when it is no longer a problem. That would be measured by the absence of records of the need for action.
	These are small amendments, but they are significant. I hope that the Government will consider them favourably, or at least assure me that they will be covered properly in the normal course of police activity.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall deal with the amendments in this group, including the government amendment, Amendment No. 163. We have had a general debate on the issue, so I shall deal with the specifics.
	Amendment No. 149 prevents a constable using the power if he has reasonable grounds for believing that the presence or behaviour of groups will result in members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed. It is essential that a constable or community support officer has powers to prevent members of the public being affected in that way, and to prevent intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress occurring. I ask all Members of the Committee who have been involved in the debate to bear in mind that the powers are available only in areas where there has been a history of intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress, and a significant and persistent problem of anti-social behaviour. The two are linked, as the right reverend Prelate described correctly. It is a rigorous test, as it must be.
	I wish to nail the issue of whether the legislation is intended to be used only against young people. There has been a whole current of suggestions from the Liberal Democrat Benches that that is the motivation for the legislation. It is not the primary, or only, motivation for introducing the clauses. I return to the example that I gave of street corners being overtaken by racists in some cities, and of powers such as these being proportionate to dealing with the problems that racists can cause in towns, cities and communities. The provision will be a very helpful tool in the fight against such racist activity. It is a matter on which Members of the Committee need to reflect.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, tabled two amendments, Amendments Nos. 150 and 151, to clarify the terms of the direction. The Government agree with the noble Baroness that the constable or community support officer giving the direction will need to make clear the locality to which the direction applies. We also agree that the locality to which the direction applies should be linked to preventing intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress, and should not be unnecessarily large. That is why the constable or community support officer has the option of giving a direction that applies only to part of the relevant locality. Both issues will be covered further in the code of practice issued under Clause 34. That is very important because, in putting together the code of practice, we will wish to ensure that we get it right, and to listen to concerned voices, such as children's charities and local authorities.
	The Government consider that a direction should be able to prevent a return to the locality for a period of up to 24 hours. The noble Baroness says that the period should be eight hours. The Government want to prevent groups merely reconvening a few hours later and continuing to cause the public harassment, alarm or distress of the sort that I described earlier. We believe that 24 hours strikes that balance. We hope that the chance of a further direction will deter people from gathering in areas where they cause problems for local communities in a very persistent and continued way.
	The power to take children home will help the police to protect local communities from the alarm and distress groups of children can cause. It will also protect children and young people from the risks posed by being unaccompanied late at night, not least that they might themselves become involved in or become the victims of anti-social or criminal behaviour. It is worth remembering that it is young people who are most likely to be victims in those circumstances.
	Amendment No. 153 seeks to limit severely the times during which this power may be used to a period from l a.m. to 5 a.m. There are severe risks with young people being out unaccompanied at such a late time. Most of us in your Lordships' House would be very concerned if teenagers from our families were out at that hour of the night. For the police not to have this power available for children out as late as 11 p.m. or midnight could put them at risk.
	Amendment No. 154 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seeks to limit the times during which this power may be used to a period from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. This is the noble Lord's paper-round amendment. It made me think about when I had a paper round in my teens. I do not remember being up at 5 a.m. and my round included the local police constable's house. If he had seen me at that hour of the day, he would have reported me to my mother in a state of shock. This measure is not intended to catch young people delivering newspapers, and it is highly unlikely to be used in those circumstances. It is not what the measure is intended to catch, as I think the noble Lord in all truth and honesty knows.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am sorry to intervene, but the problem is not so much 5 a.m., but 5.55 a.m., if we are to be pedantic about these things. The Minister is hedging on giving an assurance that the measure would not be used in this way. He said that he thought that it would not. I would have thought that he could be perfectly plain.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Let us say that it is not our intention that the measure would be used in that way, and I think that the noble Lord understands that.
	We could have a lengthy debate on when this power should be available to the police. We believe that the Bill as drafted strikes the right balance. I stress that this is a discretionary power. We recognise that young people, on occasion, have a legitimate reason to be out at night unsupervised. The police will have discretion to return home only those about whom they are concerned and who do not have a legitimate reason for being there.
	As currently drafted, a police officer or CSO can take a child home if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the child would be,
	"likely to suffer significant harm".
	Amendment No. 155 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, amends this test to "likely to suffer harm". I understand that he wishes to be entirely accurate about the terminology and get something that is easily understood. However, the term "significant harm" is well understood and appears in legislation such as the Children Act 1989 and we see no advantage in amending it. A definition can be found in Section 46(1) of that Act, so it is understood in law already. I invite the noble Lord to check the reference because it may reassure him that the definition is well used.
	Amendment No. 156 moved by the noble Lord defines "relevant locality" as the,
	"area which the constable believes to be reasonable bearing in mind the number of people involved and the circumstances of the groups".
	The Government agree that the constable or community support officer on the ground must decide the precise area from which the group must disperse, provided that it is within a larger area authorised in advance by the superintendent. Clause 30(4) allows the constable or community support officer to disperse a group from part of the relevant locality. For example, the relevant locality could be a whole housing estate, and it would be for the constable or community support officer to decide the exact streets from which the groups must disperse. That makes sense; it does not help anybody if the area is too extensive. An operational decision must be made, and that decision is best left to the constable or community support officer in the circumstances.
	Amendment No. 160 would ensure that an officer giving a direction records that direction. We agree with the principle that officers should record directions given. Such issues will be covered in the code of practice to be issued under Clause 34. We think that it is a matter of best practice and invite the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to agree. In those circumstances, it would not be appropriate to make the amendment. The officers will want to ensure that good practice is understood and that people working throughout the criminal justice system understand the importance of recording and notifying all those involved.
	Clause 35 extends the provisions in this part to the British Transport Police. Amendment No. 163, a government amendment, updates a cross-reference to the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003.
	I invite the noble Baroness not to press the amendment, in light of the explanation that I have given.

Baroness Walmsley: We accept that the Bill is not just about young people; the same arguments apply to the human right of anybody, of whatever age, not to be moved on by a policeman simply because they are there. Exactly the same things apply, no matter how old people are.
	I thank the noble Lord for his comments on the subject of the relevant area or locality. We will examine the code of practice and come back to it, if we are still not happy about it, at a later stage.
	The noble Lord said that, if the Bill did not specify a period of 24 hours, people prohibited from an area would go away for a few hours and come back again. We are proposing a period of eight hours: that is a long time to go down to the pub and have a few drinks before coming back to hang around and intimidate people. It will not happen; it will be the following morning by then.
	We discussed the issue of taking children home. If a young child is out at midnight, he is at risk, and the appropriate agencies should be called. That is what it boils down to. I was interested in what the Minister said about the definition of significant harm in the Children Act 1989. We will examine it and, perhaps, come back to it at a later stage.
	Despite the Minister's attempts to satisfy us on those issues, we are still unhappy. Undoubtedly, we will come back to them at a later stage, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 150 to 156 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 30 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Walmsley: Clauses 30 to 36 inclusive should not stand part of the Bill. As I said, I am not alone in thinking that. Not only are my colleagues in your Lordships' House—note the galaxy of talent arrayed beside and behind me on these Benches—and in another place all behind me in that, but Liberty, Barnardo's and the list of bodies that my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford read out earlier are all opposed to the provisions of Part 4 because of the detrimental impact that they will have on children and communities. The JCHR believes the powers to take children home to be illegal under human rights law; the Association of Chief Police Officers does not want these powers either; and the Local Government Association has major concerns. That is a very wide range of constituencies.
	On these Benches, we do not condone crime. Anyone who claims that we do, and campaigns against us on such an allegation, is not just lying, but is undertaking the worst kind of politics. Nor do we underestimate the impact that seriously disruptive behaviour can have on people's lives. We do not want to be soft on crime, but to be effective on crime in the long term. I think that that is what the public want too. People want measures that work. We believe that these measures will not work and could be damaging to young people and communities.
	We are aware that many people's lives are made a misery by anti-social behaviour, which must be addressed. But for the sake of local residents, it must be addressed by effective measures. For the sake of young people, it must be addressed by measures that do not alienate and demonise them. However, the proposals on dispersal will simply increase local tension between those in positions of authority and young people and their families, as well as those who are harassed, without effectively tackling the root causes of anti-social behaviour. We urge the Government to reconsider their proposals and to consult with all members of the community. They must listen to children and young people about the most effective ways of reducing anti-social behaviour, while offering children and families the help that they need.
	Young people need to understand how threatening they can be to old people. Moving them on just does not do that. If the legislation is passed, it could even lead to a three-month prison sentence for failure to comply. Most civilised countries in Western Europe would be horrified by such a proposal. Most young people behave well. Those who hang about on street corners do not want to be there. If asked why they are there, they will say that they are too broke to go to the cinema; or in the case of my home town, there is no cinema, and no bus to get to one. They may say that there is nowhere else to go to meet their mates: there is no youth club, no leisure centre—or just one that is closed or inadequate for their needs—and no coffee bar, with its funny Pyrex cups that are now becoming collector's items, like the ones in which I used to hang out during the 1960s. There is nothing.
	Part 4 revisits existing provisions to impose area-based child curfew notices, first introduced under Section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—a power which, to date, has not been used. This part of the Bill is an unnecessary extension of an existing unused and discredited power. We have been reminded today that local child curfew notices, under the Crime and Disorder Act, were framed by the Government as protective measures for children and young people and as a support to parents. The new measures in the Bill reverse the presumption; they view children and young people as primarily a problem rather than in need of protection.
	Why? I believe that it is the easy option. Doing the job more creatively requires more thought, more partnership and more resources. The power of dispersal is an easy way to fail to tackle the problem and to move it somewhere else. These new powers on dispersal of groups do not include any requirement to consult the local community, including children, young people and their families. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen.
	The proposal removes power from the local community—a strange contradiction of the ethos of the White Paper statement that,
	"to tackle anti-social behaviour we must ensure that the community sets clear standards of behaviour".
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights highlighted major concerns. On removing children to their place of residence, the JCHR states:
	"Despite the safeguards to which the Government refers, we are not satisfied that the measures in Clause 30(6) of the Bill are a proportionate response to a pressing social need, or that the safeguards provide assurance that the power would be used only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so to protect the child. We therefore conclude that there is a risk of incompatibility with ECHR Article 5 (right to liberty), 8 (right to respect for a private life) and 11 (freedom of association)".
	Furthermore, the children's charities, for whom all noble Lords have great respect, have highlighted that the power to take children home would contravene Articles 15 and 31 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guarantee children freedom of association and the right to leisure, recreation and cultural activities.
	Members on these Benches are concerned about the subjectivity of the powers, raising the possibility that they could be misused. Dispersal need not be on the basis that anti-social behaviour has occurred, but that the mere presence of a group is capable of resulting in alarm or distress in a member of the public. There are muscular young men in the gym where I exercise who are capable of causing alarm and distress to me, but I do not expect them to be moved on for my sake.
	Although the dispersal should take place only in an area where anti-social behaviour has been a persistent problem, there is nothing to stop perfectly law-abiding people who happen to be in the area at the time, doing no one any harm, being targeted by an over-zealous police officer and moved along with the rest. They may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the previous offences that caused the area to be designated as one where persistent anti-social behaviour takes place. What kind of police state does it make us when it becomes a criminal offence to walk down the street?
	We are also very concerned about the potential negative impact on local community relations. The Association of Chief Police Officers is concerned about the effect these powers might have on relations with ethnic minority communities. The street culture of young black people means that they are more likely than are young white people to gather on the street and therefore more likely to be targeted by these powers, potentially reopening tensions with the police that have been fading away in many areas due to hard work on the part of the police and co-operation from communities. It would be a great pity to destroy that work.
	The Local Government Association believes that these proposals may simply displace problems from one area to another. It has pointed out that local authorities deliver key services such as youth offending teams, youth work, social services, education and highways. The intervention of these services will be necessary to achieve in the longer term a reduction in anti-social behaviour with the groups from the dispersed area, if the problem is not simply to be moved elsewhere. It is also important to ensure that decisions to invoke an order should be taken only where police commanders and local authorities are convinced that all alternative interventions have failed.
	For young people, hanging around and showing off is normal behaviour. It does not mean that they are up to no good. Those that are can be dealt with under existing powers. The statute book is bulging with public order legislation. We need to build trust between young people and the police, not erode it through powers like this. The powers will also be ineffective. What is to stop a child taken home from coming out again as soon as the officer's back is turned? What is to stop members of a group that has been dispersed from going and causing trouble somewhere else? Unless you find out why they are there, explain to them how their presence makes others feel and give them something better to do, simply dispersing them is a terribly negative way of dealing with what we accept is a problem. But we need effective ways, not easy ways. I oppose the Question that Clause 30 should stand part of the Bill.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I rise to support my noble friend in opposing this clause and this whole part of the Bill, which really is the "move along" part. I have been considering some of the comments made during the course of this debate. The Minister said that it is time to enter the world of reality, while the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford referred to the fact that there are problems with anti-social behaviour in our cities. There are also problems in the countryside, even in the town of Hereford, as I know.
	Following the line just taken by my noble friend, ample legislation is in place to deal with the situation where an offence has been committed or there is the likelihood of an offence taking place. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 would apply with drugs and drunkenness offences. The Public Order Act 1986 would deal with a likely breach of the peace. If an offence is being committed or is likely to be committed, the police have a role. The only effect of these provisions will be to permit the police, if they want to exercise these powers—and of course they never exercised their powers under the child curfew order which we debated at length in 1998—to move a group of people from one area to another.
	It is said that we are not dealing only with young people; that other groups of people may fall into this category. I have been trying to think of some. It could include those who wish to demonstrate—not by marching; they would be excluded under subsection (5) providing they had permission—for example, outside a social security office or against a pedestrian crossing. In the course of doing so, some people may feel intimidated, harassed and so on. The provisions in the Bill will impinge on people's rights to do that.
	There is racial tension in some areas, sometimes between ethnic groups and sometimes involving white racists and so on. Those kinds of public order issues can be dealt with by the existing legislation without the need for more.
	In the face of the opposition to this part of the Bill which has been expressed by all the organisations to which my noble friend referred, and the clear decision of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that these provisions breach Articles 5, 8, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, why do the Government wish to persist? I invite them to withdraw this part of the Bill from the consideration of the House.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Many of these issues have already been debated in some detail. I shall try to be as "telegraphic" as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would want me to be if he were in his place. The case against clause stand part was succinctly and elegantly put by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford.
	I have become troubled by the theme running through a number of comments made in relation to Clause 30—that it is an attempt to alienate or demonise young people. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know it is proper that in Committee we should concentrate on each clause as it comes, but we cannot divorce the Bill and these provisions from the plethora of work that we are carrying out right across the piece to re-engage young people and to meet their needs in terms of education, social integration and activity after school. In that endeavour the Government are linking arms with civil society. We are involving the churches, non-governmental organisations, local authorities and all people of good will who have at their core the interests of young people and children.
	The clause was not fashioned or targeted to bite solely on young people, but to bite on the people in a community who are responsible for the anti-social behaviour which adversely affects others and makes life intolerable for many. I therefore feel that it was absolutely correct for the right reverend Prelate to emphasise how important he feels that "and" is. I respectfully agree.
	The combination of those factors means that it should be appropriately difficult to designate areas to which these provisions will apply. We are not talking about people going about their everyday business and being inappropriately dispersed; we are talking about an area which has been designated as an area of acute difficulty and concern for members of the community, where they are seeking relief. And they are entitled to it.
	I join issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in relation to her comments about black young people. Can I reassure her that the people who are part of our black and minority ethnic community are just as passionate about anti-social behaviour and wish to find a means to bring about its cessation as are their white counterparts? I am sure the noble Baroness did not mean to cause offence, but I regret to tell her that some may, on reading her comments, take offence. I am sure, knowing the noble Baroness as I do, that no such offence was intended.
	These are temperate provisions which we think give back to communities an ability to reclaim a sense of security. Of course I hear everything that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, says about these matters. We are not turning this into a police state; there will be proper consultation with the local authorities and community groups. I remind noble Lords that in those areas where communities are plagued by anti-social behaviour, there is a hunger for relief—a hunger which we, as legislators, should seek properly to satisfy.
	It is not an improper hunger. It is all very well for those of us who have the privilege of living in areas where we are not subjected to the daily harassment and indignity of not being able to go about our everyday business. Some people are terrified to go out of the door because they think they will be jostled and badly treated. There are estates where right-thinking people feel they cannot leave their front door in safety. Some areas have been reclaimed by the use of anti-social behaviour orders, and we aspire to reclaim more of them.
	I have some comfort for the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and his lonely boy doing a paper round. It is usual for the boy on his bicycle to be on his own. Unless he is riding tandem, these provisions will not apply to him because within this area, police and community support officers will have the power to disperse groups of two or more people. Tandem may become the modus operandi for paper boys in the future, but, to my knowledge, that does not appear to be the case yet.
	The direction may also include a prohibition on returning to the area for up to 24 hours. We are not going to play ring-around-the-roses with these situations. Eight hours may not always be quite enough. If people are asked to disperse properly, we want them to do so and not come back, and 24 hours is not by any means an unreasonable period.
	When the British crime survey of 2002–03 asked what people were most concerned about, 33 per cent of the respondents cited teenagers hanging around in the street as a very or fairly big problem in their area. I take on board everything that has been said about the need for young people to have safe places to play, proper activities and an alternative. I think on the last occasion on which we spoke about this, I gave the example of the experiment in Harrow. People who were complaining about young children took their dog and went to the park with the young children in question, so they were safe, and the problem was solved.
	We need innovative, creative responses to social interaction. The work that we are doing in creating the National Criminal Justice Board, and the local criminal justice boards which will enable people to study local needs and think about diversion and alternatives, will, in addition to the improvements and the grants that we are giving, help us to do much.
	There is no simple answer; there is no quick fix. We need the full panoply. We need to use every tool available to us to ensure that our communities are safe for young people. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to the young people who have been dispersed. She will also know that younger young people are often the most frightened. The bullying that worries some of our very young children of tender years is often visited on them by their older brothers' and sisters' friends. We want to make life safe for all our children—the provisions do not relate only to those who want to behave badly and make life hell for everyone else. It is not only a measure for young people, but for everyone.
	This is a very important part of the Bill. We are not dealing here with lawful picketing or any other lawful action. Members of the Committee can read what is said in Clause 30. It ensures that those who are picketing lawfully or participating in a lawful march are not caught by the power.
	Clause 31 sets out further details about the process of making an authorisation, giving the police the authority to use the two powers. The authorisation must be in writing, signed by the relevant officer, specify the relevant locality, the grounds for authorisation and the period for which it is valid. There is nothing that says that it has to be for six months; that is the outer limit, and it can be reduced if it appears that the ill that most concerned everyone has passed away. The provision is a flexible tool.
	It may be a flexible tool, but history has taught us that it is a tool that we need in our armoury. It is not illiberal; it is not against the human rights of the individual; it is trying to create a balance. As regards the Human Rights Act 1998, we have to balance the rights and liberties of one group with the rights and liberties of another. Sometimes those rights conflict and we have to strike a balance. We believe that the balance is about right, and I ask Members of Committee to consider that this is a proper part of the Bill and that the clauses should stand part of the Bill. I ask those on the Liberal Democrat Benches to think again, with a little charity, about what everyone is trying to do, and not to press this further.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: Before the Minister finishes, could I press her on the matter of human rights? She says that she believes that the provisions are not incompatible. Is she prepared to say categorically that the Joint Committee is wrong in its statement on that issue? That is an area on which I feel concern, and I do not feel that we have had an entirely satisfactory response.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In our response to the committee's comments, we set out fully why we believe the provisions to be compatible. I know that it is getting late. I am quite happy to make the response available to the right reverent Prelate if he believes that that would be helpful, and to ensure that a copy is placed in the Library so that all have an opportunity to read it.
	To respond properly to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, it would be right for me to go through each and every comment made by the committee. That would be the proper way to respond. However, I have tried to be more telegraphic because it is very difficult at this time of night to ensure that everyone absorbs what I say. Lawyers are always being accused of going on for ever and boring people with technicalities, and I do not want to be found equally guilty. What I have suggested may be the most efficacious way of dealing with the issue. If the right reverend Prelate would be content, I would be more than happy to write to him and to make the response available to everyone else.

Lord Dixon-Smith: If it would help the Minister, I am sure that I am right in saying that the Government's response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights is already available in the Printed Paper Office in the second report on the Bill.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for her response. However, may I make a small correction to the very beginning of her remarks? I did not suggest that the Bill was an attempt to alienate and demonise young people. I meant to suggest that young people would be inadvertently alienated and demonised by the measures in the Bill. I am sure that it is not the Government's intention to alienate and demonise young people, but we think that that will be a consequence if these measures are passed into law.
	The Minister talked about the efforts the Government are making to engage young people. Of course we welcome all that. However, it is not completely working, and that is why we have problems. We truly still do not think that these are the ways to do it—because of the unintended consequence of alienating and demonising young people to which I just referred. Of course also, we accept that this is not just about young people. I accept absolutely what the Minister said about younger children sometimes being intimidated by older ones. However, our arguments apply to people of any age.
	I turn to the Minister's comments about what I said about black and Asian young people. Of course she is quite correct that there was no intention in my remarks to be offensive in any way. If my actual words are read, I am sure that that will be quite clear. There could be a different interpretation that the noble Baroness had in her head, but, if so, with respect, it was an incorrect one. My remarks were intended to protect young black and Asian people from being inappropriately targeted by the police if they have the powers in the Bill. I thought that I had made that quite clear. Stop-and-search powers cast a very long shadow.
	The Minister spoke with the same passion that I feel about the need to provide conditions whereby people can live the peaceful life to which they have a right. I think that we both agree on that. Clearly we disagree about the methods that will be effective in achieving that. I was most interested to hear for a second time—I was not bored by it—the example of Harrow which the Minister mentioned. It is a very good example. However, it did not require the Bill to do it; QED, I think I should say.
	On the question of human rights, it is not that I think that the Bill is against the human rights of individuals—it is the experts who think so. It is the Joint Committee on Human Rights which says so, and it is very clear about it.
	I thank the Minister for her courtesy in responding to me this evening. I fear that we will come back to these matters later in our consideration.

Clause 30 agreed to.
	Clause 31 [Authorisations: supplemental]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 157:
	Page 27, line 17, at end insert ", and
	(d) must be granted by a magistrates' court"

Lord Dixon-Smith: It is only a very short spell of months since we were busy revising the magistrates' courts into an all-singing, all-dancing, all-performing and wonderful social organisation. It struck us that it was a remarkable lacuna in the Bill that they were not to be consulted when these areas were to be designated. After all, in some ways, that sort of judgment is more appropriate to magistrates than it is to a local authority. We consult the local authority, but the magistrates are not involved—although, of course, they clearly would be involved if any court case subsequently arose as a result of all this. It is a simple little amendment which we thought worth exploring. Why in this particular instance have the magistracy been left out of this particular matter? There may be a good reason for it. If there is, I shall be very interested to hear it. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: I support Amendment No. 157. I am sure that the Committee is quite tired of hearing from me tonight, so I shall be very brief. I think that it is wholly reasonable that a magistrates' court should be able to assess the need for an authorisation and grant it or not as it sees fit. There is a great danger that the police will be able to grant themselves far too much power. To put the magistrates' court into the balance is a suitable check and balance to prevent that.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, explained, Amendment No. 157 seeks to move the granting of an authorisation from a senior police officer to a magistrate. This will make the process for granting an authorisation far more lengthy and bureaucratic, as well as costly. Cost is a very important consideration.
	There are similar circumstances when the police can authorise powers to be used in a designated area without an application to the courts. One example, which I believe the noble Lord will appreciate, is the power to stop and search for offensive weapons under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
	Of course, if someone is prosecuted for failure to comply with a direction, they will have the opportunity to challenge whether an authorisation was properly made in the course of their defence.
	As the noble Lord said, it is a simple amendment but we believe that it is unnecessary and bureaucratic. We are also somewhat puzzled by the way in which the Conservative Party in the Commons wanted to remove the authorisation entirely. That seems somewhat at odds with the position which the noble Lord adopted in the Committee this evening. He may wish to reflect on that when he reads Hansard and considers whether the amendment is sensible. The noble Baroness expertly seconded, as it were, the noble Lord's move to strike out the provision we are discussing. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am slightly amused by the noble Lord's sally against me because of a slight inconsistency between Members of this House and Members of another place. We are independent of them and we are able to take our own line across country. That is exactly what we have done. We thought that there was a case to answer. To be fair, the noble Lord has answered it. Whether I entirely agree with every word he said is another matter. As I say, we thought that there was a case to answer and I am grateful for the explanation. We shall study that response. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 not moved.]
	Clause 31 agreed to.
	Clause 32 [Powers under section 30: supplemental]:
	[Amendment No. 160 not moved.]

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 161:
	Page 28, line 8, after "person" insert "unless they are under the age of 18"

Baroness Walmsley: In moving Amendment No. 161, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 162. These amendments are similar in a way to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 to Part 2 which I moved last week. They are based on our obligation under the UNCRC to treat under-18s differently in the criminal justice system.
	Because of the lateness of the hour I shall not repeat all the arguments I advanced last week. Suffice it to say that we believe that a three-month gaol sentence is excessive for a young person who is simply there in a place where an officer thinks he should not be. A fine is also inappropriate. Young people have little income so the fine should, if proportionate, be very small and therefore ineffective. If we must have these measures at all, at least let us have a community sentence which avoids dragging children into prisons and gives them an opportunity to do something useful for their community instead. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say straight away that I share the noble Baroness's concern in tabling Amendments Nos. 161 and 162 that juveniles convicted of knowingly contravening a direction should not face a custodial sentence. I reassure her immediately that a custodial sentence is not an option for juveniles convicted of this offence.
	Given the debate we had in relation to Clause 4 of this Bill, perhaps it would be helpful if I made clear that there is no need for the Bill to spell out all the available sentencing options open to a court. The options available to a court dealing with a criminal offence are set out in the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (as amended). Options range, in hierarchical order, from imprisonment, community service orders, fines through to conditional and absolute discharges. The legislation creating the offence will spell out the maximum period of imprisonment and the maximum fine which can be imposed, but the sentencing court can of course impose a lesser penalty. The Bill sets the maximum penalty as three months' imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale—that is to say £2,500 for an adult, £1,000 for 14 year-olds to 17 year-olds and £250 for 10 year-olds to 13 year-olds.
	Detention and training orders, the juvenile equivalent of imprisonment, can be made for a minimum of four months. That means that where the maximum penalty of imprisonment which could be imposed is less than four months, as here, a detention and treatment order is not an option in relation to a juvenile offender. The court will be left with the options of a community sentence, a fine, a conditional discharge or an absolute discharge.
	In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel comforted, and I ask her not to press her amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: I am most grateful to the Minister for spelling the matter out so clearly, and for giving a clear reassurance from the Dispatch Box that custodial sentences will not be used for young people. I am sure that the children's organisations will be as reassured as I am. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
	Clause 32 agreed to.
	Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.
	Clause 35 [Authorisations by British Transport Police]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 163:
	Page 29, line 22, leave out "30(1)(a)" and insert "31(1)(a)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 36 [Interpretation]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 164:
	Page 29, line 33, leave out from second "council" to end of line 34.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendments Nos. 164 and 165 are quite important. Amendment No. 164 would ensure that the police would consult both county and district councils, where both exist, in relation to consideration of dispersal orders. In two-tier local government areas, county councils deliver many key services such as youth offending teams, youth work, social services, education and highways. They are therefore heavily involved in the consequences of the orders, and of course in doing their best to prevent the need for those orders. It therefore seems entirely reasonable that, where two-tier government exists, county councils should be consulted. I hope that the Government will consider that very seriously.
	One could argue that the Bill had been drafted in anticipation of our having regional government and unitary authorities across the country. However, there will be a considerable interregnum before that unhappy situation comes about. In the meantime, the county councils are entitled to be consulted as major providers of services in relation to the young people concerned.
	Amendment No. 165 would extend the power to apply for an anti-social behaviour order to county councils. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created anti-social behaviour orders. In two-tier local government areas, the order then could be applied for only by district councils or the police service. Subsequent legislation has extended the power to the transport police and registered social landlords. We think it would be reasonable to extend the power to county councils in view of the relationship between county and district councils, and in view of the fact that county councils are heavily committed to service provision to try to prevent the problems and are, in many instances, considerable landlords, although they are not housing authorities and certainly not social housing landlords. It may be superseded by other structural legislation for local government, but we must deal with the structure as it is. Where there is two-tier government, the councils are entitled to have a voice and to act pari passu with district councils. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: I support the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, but I have nothing to add to his eloquent remarks.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I agree with the noble Lord that they are important amendments and their effect has been expertly described. Amendment No. 164 requires the police to consult both the county and district councils before granting authorisation for the use of dispersal powers. Amendment No. 165 seeks simply—I say "simply" in parenthesis—to add county councils to the list of relevant authorities which can apply for an anti-social behaviour order.
	The Government recognise that county councils have an important role to play in tackling anti-social behaviour and that a number of counties are keen to be pro-active in that area. The amendments would, on the face of it, certainly assist county councils in fulfilling their role. However, we wish to be satisfied that the process involved would not be overly bureaucratic—I have expressed that concern before—or land local authorities and the police service with disproportionate and undue financial burdens. Cost is an important consideration.
	Nevertheless, I am happy to give the propositions further thought and we will return to them at a later stage. We accept the points made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness and wish to give them further consideration because they are important.
	I am struck slightly by the irony that the noble Baroness can support the extension of ASBOs to county councils, but has argued against the clause in its entirety. I am sure that she can live with that—

Baroness Walmsley: I live in the real world. We on these Benches may not prevail in the end. Should that unfortunately be the case, we would wish to see the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in the Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My mother used to say "having your cake and eating it". That sums up the position perfectly.
	We are keen to give the matter further thought. We are grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for bringing forward the amendment, but we hope that they will not press it now.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am genuinely grateful to the noble Lord for his response and for offering to give further consideration to the amendments. I was aware that there was a financial concern, although it must be a fairly small one in relation to county councils. That is neither here nor there. It is right that the matter should be examined. I know that my colleagues in local government hope that they will be able to demonstrate that the proposal would be cost-neutral. I look forward to hearing from the Minister again on Report, when I hope to see the amendments tabled in his name. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 36 agreed to.
	Clause 37 [Anti-social behaviour orders]:
	[Amendment No. 165 not moved.]
	Clause 37 agreed to.
	Clause 38 [Certain orders made on conviction of offences]:

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: moved Amendment No. 166:
	Page 31, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 32.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I rise to propose Amendment No. 166 and to speak to Amendment No. 167, which, as Members of the Committee will have noticed, is virtually identical and extends the proposed deletion to Clause 38(4).
	The amendment relates to the provision in the Bill which states that, where an ASBO—an anti-social behaviour order—has been imposed by the youth court, the automatic reporting restrictions which currently apply under Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 should be lifted. While the court retains the discretion to apply reporting restrictions in individual cases, the balance has been reversed from what currently obtains, where reporting is automatically restricted unless the court decides otherwise.
	The intention of the clause is to make public the details of a young person who is subject to an ASBO, including his or her name, address and school, and so on, with a view to "naming and shaming", to use that unattractive phrase. Not only is the phrase unattractive but so is the motive. Children are rarely shamed into good social behaviour, and I know of no objective or convincing evidence that treating young people in this way and publishing their offence and subsequent order has the effect of deterring future offending behaviour.
	I understand that the intention in the Bill is to reassure the community that action is being taken against such young people, and the public will be encouraged to make complaints and inform the police of breaches. But equally well it could increase fear of crime by heightening public awareness. Indeed, there is ample anecdotal evidence that it is more likely to have the detrimental effect of stigmatising the child within the community, impacting on the whole family, including younger siblings, whose vulnerability, as we have already discussed, should also be borne in mind, and impeding community relations—not to speak of the damaging effect on job prospects and lowered chances of going straight in the community, which is what we all want. There is also a strong possibility of the reverse result—of a kind of notoriety which bestows an anti-hero status on the young person. That, of course, is totally undesirable.
	More importantly, Article 40(2) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child asserts the child's right to privacy,
	"at all stages of the proceedings".
	That cannot be ignored. Further, Article 8 of the ECHR, concerning the right to a private life, is also relevant, as was demonstrated in the case of The Queen v. The Chief Constable of Essex Police, where the court found that,
	"damage could be done to the claimant's family . . . and the need to safeguard children is particularly important".
	As always—here, as often I do, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland—a balance must be struck. In this case, the potential damage to the family and children outweighs any perceived advantage from publicising the offenders' details in posters. I like to think that the Government could also take that view.
	In short, the anonymity of children under 18 should be protected both in their interest and, equally importantly, in the interest of the community as well, unless there is a real issue of public safety. I hope that the Government will seriously reconsider this aspect of the process of the youth court in the interests of the community as well as of the offender, rather than pursue this negative and potentially damaging change. We must look to positive and constructive ways of reducing anti-social behaviour, and I believe that this is not one of them. I beg to move.

The Earl of Listowel: I speak to Amendment No. 167 in my name. I share the deep concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, about this provision. I recognise the intention behind the Government's proposal, but I am concerned that removing these restrictions, as they propose to do, may be dangerous for children who are subject to anti-social behaviour orders, as the noble Baroness said, and may, as she also said, propel some of them into further criminal and anti-social behaviour.
	I recognise the reasons why Her Majesty's Government, housing managers, local communities and many magistrates want to change the normal rules in the juvenile court for the particular circumstances in which an anti-social behaviour order is placed on a child following his conviction for a criminal offence.
	However, the end we all seek should not eclipse our concern for the welfare of individual children. The children of whom we speak may, for instance, have smeared faeces in the face of a baby or have so terrorised elderly neighbours that such neighbours are afraid to leave the home or even to turn their lights on at night behind the curtains. They may have chased one parent around her car with a knife while her husband is protecting the children within that vehicle. They may also have grown up with little or no contact with their father. As an infant they may have been left in their room on their own, daily, for months on end, their mother returning only to scold them for crying. One or other of their parents may have been through a care system within which they experienced 50 or more placements in different foster homes or children's homes over three years before the age of 16 and have been left unable to act as an adequate parent as a consequence. Has enough research been done into the impact of publication of the child's name, address and photograph in the local press on that child and his family? Sometimes the children are as young as 14.
	While it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to name and shame children, it may be that on some children the effect of social opprobrium will be to shock them into reforming their behaviour. Other children may feel that greater notoriety is an asset and may feel moved to worse behaviour still. Still others may, for various reasons, be moved to harm themselves or to attempt suicide. It may be that some are rejected from the family home as a consequence of publicity. An identified child's family may become the subject of intimidation by members of the local community. Younger siblings may be particularly vulnerable. Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) were introduced about three years ago. I would be grateful to the Minister if she could make available to your Lordships the research showing that identifying children subject to ASBOs is safe. I have no doubt that Her Majesty's Government will have been carefully monitoring the impact this controversial measure has had on identified children and their families.
	In that context it is especially worrying and, indeed, I think noble Lords may find it wholly unacceptable that some adult courts currently do not have access to good quality information on the family circumstances of a child before making this decision on whether to lift reporting restrictions. A principal legal officer of a magistrates' court has expressed her concern that the court relies for its advice simply on the child's solicitor. She points out that a solicitor is likely to have spoken to the child and parent only outside the family home. She states that not all solicitors are as diligent at inquiring into the family background as they need to be. In other proceedings dealing with vulnerable minors the courts have reports from social care professionals who have visited the child's home. Is the Minister aware of the concern that magistrates are not being adequately informed before making these momentous decisions? If so, what is being done to address that? I apologise to the Minister for not giving her notice of this question and I understand if she would prefer to write to me on this detailed point.
	Given the lateness of the hour, I shall edit my speech. I respect the Minister's real desire to improve the quality of life for all of those living in sometimes our most deprived areas by sharing widely information on these children with their communities. However, how can we be expected to support the extension of these measures to juvenile courts when the current arrangements in the adult court appear most unsatisfactory? Surely, Her Majesty's Government should radically reform the procedures in the adult court before proceeding further and we should be provided with information to assure us that the identification of children—often very vulnerable and young—in the adult courts has been safe for these children and the families involved. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say straightaway that I very much echo the concern just expressed about difficult situations in which children have developed into individuals who then exhibit anti-social behaviour to others. We know that often that is a direct result of the way that they have been nurtured—or rather, have not been nurtured—by others. That is a significant issue.
	We are trying to remove an anomaly in the provision by bringing reporting restrictions for orders on conviction in the youth court into line with anti-social behaviour orders made in the magistrates' court. As the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, so clearly said, anti-social behaviour orders made against juveniles in the magistrates' court at the moment are not subject to automatic reporting restrictions.
	I can reassure the noble Baroness that the court will retain the discretion to apply reporting restrictions where it believes that to be appropriate; for example, in the interests of the rehabilitation of the child. If the noble Baroness looks at new subsection (9C)(b) in Clause 38(3), she will see that Section 39 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—the power to prohibit publication of certain matters—still applies. The noble Baroness will know that Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provides:
	"In relation to any proceedings in any court . . . the court may direct that . . . no newspaper report of the proceedings shall reveal the name, address, or school, or include particulars calculated to lead to the identification, of any child",
	and,
	"(b) no picture shall be published in any newspaper as being or including a picture of any child . . . except in so far (if at all) as may be permitted by the direction of the court".
	That provision has been in being since 1933, precisely to protect children and to have the balance, but also to permit proper identification and publicity if that proves to be necessary. So, although we are lifting the provision in relation to anti-social behaviour orders in terms of the presumption, the court's ability to protect the child, if the court feels on the facts of that particular case that it is merited, is there and retained. We believe that that is very important.
	We hope these anti-social behaviour orders will be relatively rare. The noble Baroness and the noble Earl will know that in many cases they have been most successful when the ringleader of any group has been targeted and dealt with. Many of the other young people who have gathered around that person either melt away or become more amenable to being dealt with. It is a matter of huge concern and distress that there are some young people who have been very damaged. They are very destructive, not only to themselves but to others. One way of trying to address that is to take different opportunities to try and change that behaviour.
	We know from our research and the Home Office review of ASBOs—the Home Office review of April 2002—that the opportunity to use publicity properly has on occasion been very useful in addressing these issues. For example, we know of one solicitor for Salford council, who considered that one of the most significant aspects of obtaining an anti-social behaviour order is the ability to publicise it. In one case a witness outreach team in Salford spoke to a resident living on an estate, who was troubled by anti-social behaviour and the perpetrators were a gang of youths.
	They received press coverage when they were given anti-social behaviour orders. The residents said that the publicity prevented the youths from further intimidating the community, because the youths knew that if they breached the order, that breach would be reported, because everyone in the community was aware of the orders. That actually worked to help the children. So they are not to be used just to help the community. As I think that the noble Baroness and the noble Earl will both agree, doing that which will cause or help the children to change that behaviour is also beneficial to them—keeping not only the community but them safe.
	We have also seen that in the wonderful work done in Slade Green in Kent. Before Slade Green was branded as a community safety action zone, only 22 per cent of the residents questioned said that they felt safe at night. Nine months later, 93 per cent of the residents questioned felt safe at night.
	They had made judicious use of ASBOs that had been publicised in a way that was creative for the community. It is something of wonder that an area that felt totally unsafe, in which no one wanted to be housed, now has a waiting list. That community is feeling confident, but that is also creating an environment in which children who had previously engaged in very bad behaviour appear to be behaving better because the community has spoken with one voice.
	I absolutely understand the concerns of the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, but we will have the security of knowing that the court will decide. I take the noble Earl's point about the importance of the courts having the information that they need to reach an informed decision on whether it is proper to make an order restricting publicity, but it has tended to be only in cases involving the extreme perpetrator that the tool of publicity has been used to try to curb behaviour. That has not stigmatised children inappropriately.
	As the noble Baroness said, one tragedy is that for some such children that is not an issue for them; it is an issue for other people. We must try to reclaim them but, using the power that we have retained with the 1933 Act, we shall probably be able to do that.

The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for her reply. I shall read carefully the Home Office research to which she referred. I think that she may want to speak further, so I give way.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Just to say that if I find any further or other research that could help and/or answer more specifically the points made by the noble Earl, I shall certainly write to him and make copies of the letter available to all those who have participated in the Committee.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I thank the Minister for that full, well-argued and thoughtful response. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his eloquent description of how families can be affected and sucked into situations in which there is great potential for damage.
	I was well aware of what the noble Baroness reminded us: that under the new provision courts retain discretion to have reporting restrictions in place. That leaves me unclear why the position has been reversed at all. The noble Baroness has already demonstrated her awareness of the sensitivity of the situation; my case is that automatic restrictions should apply unless the court decides otherwise. Once again, it is a matter of balance.
	I have listened to the debate with great interest; I shall read it with interest in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 167 not moved.]
	Clause 38 agreed to.
	Clause 39 [Penalty notices for disorderly behaviour by young persons]:

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: moved Amendment No. 168:
	Page 32, line 29, leave out subsection (2).

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 169 to 171. Given the lateness of the hour, perhaps I might suggest that the debate on these amendments and the debate on the Question whether Clause 39 shall stand part be rolled into one, if that meets with the Committee's approval.

Noble Lords: Yes.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: Thank you very much. The Bill extends the scope of fixed penalty notices for disorderly behaviour downwards to 16 and 17 year-olds, and so treats those young people as adults.
	When the scheme was introduced for over 18s under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, it was also to be piloted and evaluated in four force areas. As I understand it, that evaluation has not been completed or the outcomes assessed. It therefore seems over-hasty to consider the extension before its initial effectiveness has been clarified. However, whatever the results of the pilots, the fact is that people in this age group are still not adults, even if they believe that they are. Amendment No. 168 seeks, therefore, to delete the subsection lowering the age to 16.
	More worryingly, the Bill provides the power in Clause 39(3), by affirmative resolution procedure, to extend the age group still further to children as young as 10. Amendment No. 170, therefore, proposes that the subsection be firmly deleted—if a deletion can be even more firm the second time around—on the grounds that children of that age simply cannot understand the full consequences of accepting a fixed penalty notice, whatever the outcomes of the pilots for 16 and 17 year-olds. That extension should simply not be an option. An FPN should be issued only if the child gives informed consent. It is stretching credulity that children of that age have the capacity to understand what the consequences or relevance of a fixed penalty notice will be. Certainly, the police operational guidelines in the current piloting in relation to adults states:
	"A penalty notice will not be appropriate where the suspect appears to be unable to understand what is being offered to them".
	How much more likely is that to be true of young people, let alone 10 year-olds?
	Furthermore, there are real risks of labelling such vulnerable children and opening the door wider to the possibilities of further offending. It is not a device that enables positive social behaviour or ensures the sort of protection that such children actually need.
	Amendment No. 171 is a logical extension for the protection of young people that they may be offered a fixed-penalty notice by a police officer only where the child is accompanied by an appropriate adult and additionally should also have the right to legal advice. Again, the notice may be issued only if the young person gives informed consent, as is consistent with code C of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code of practice, which applies to under 17 year-olds. We believe that that should also apply to under 18 year-olds, as children aged 17 seem to have been missed out.
	We are also unclear how a fixed penalty notice will impact on an ASBO and other court disposals on a child. I would be grateful if the Minister could illuminate that.
	I wish now to oppose the Question that Clause 39 stand part of the Bill. I have already outlined our objections to Clause 39, and the extension of the fixed penalty notice to young people aged 16 and 17 for disorderly behaviour during the discussion of the amendments, so I shall not rehearse them. It is clear that the purpose of the adult fixed penalty notices scheme is to deal quickly and effectively with low-level anti-social and nuisance offending, to encourage community involvement and to cut down on the burden of administration, which uses up so much valuable police time. Those objectives are completely understandable, and we have no quarrel with them where adults are concerned.
	However, we take issue with the fact that, in the interests of swift justice, the protections provided in law for children and young people have been sacrificed. It is not a sacrifice that we should even contemplate. We have already heard from my noble friend Lady Walmsley about how damaging, divisive and counter-productive are the clauses on the dispersal of groups. However, if we can stand back and ask why such groups are there and what is needed to remove their wish or need to be threatening or intimidating, we will find that dispersing and moving on people simply for being somewhere and for what they might do does not address any of the problems of anti-social behaviour. It merely displaces them along with the young people, which is the argument that we have been making about displacement. When the problem has gone up a notch and the police are contemplating fixed penalty notices, the problems begin to be compounded.
	I know that the Minister is as committed as anyone to protecting the vulnerable—especially children—and to promoting harmony in our communities, and we share those aims. However, the major flaw in this part of the Bill is that the steps being proposed will achieve none of those objectives. Indeed, the danger is that, by widening the net of sanctions—I believe that we sometimes use the phrase "sanction creep"—to include younger people whose lives and lifestyles betray all sorts of inadequacies, the measures will increase the likelihood of them being drawn further into youth offending and the criminal justice system. We have been talking this evening about behaviour that is essentially not criminal—about being in a place where people are being intimidated—yet we this evening talk about youth justice and criminal justice. If we look back in Hansard, I am sure that we will find that the language has slipped. That is where the danger lies.
	The very principle of blurring the boundaries between adults, young people and children immediately runs counter to the established codes of PACE—especially Code C—which are precisely designed to safeguard young people against early contact with the criminal law. Everything that we can do in that regard also safeguards the law-abiding majority in our communities. What is certain, as sure as night follows day, is that the younger the age at which those involved in anti-social behaviour become involved with youth offending, the more certain they are to reoffend, with all the consequences that flow from that. We override these sensible, existing legal precautions at our peril.
	Furthermore, this group is already discriminated against in relation to financial and other benefits. Such young people are less likely than their less vulnerable peers to be in either school or work and will come under disproportionate pressure in comparison with adults when it comes to paying fixed penalties. Transferring the burden to parents raises the question of how the payment will be enforced and of what provisions will exist for looked-after children, who are the responsibility of the local authority. It increases the risk of children coming into care if the parents cannot or will not pay, and thus of spreading the criminalising net still further. Therefore, this proposal is especially inappropriate and discriminatory as a sanction and I hope that the Government will not pursue this line of attack.
	There is a real danger of employing politically attractive strategies which are simple, speedy and visible in the hope that they will reassure the electorate that action is being taken, regardless of whether a problem has really been addressed or has simply been moved elsewhere. The Minister has already put her finger on the problem when she said that there is no quick fix in these situations. Dealing with many of the root problems of anti-social behaviour is anything but simple. They take time to resolve, which does not help those who want to see some immediate response and solution.
	What works in this context is particularly dangerous if it takes place in a moral vacuum, as I tried to indicate in my comments on the dispersal of groups. Truly effective action must take account of the bigger picture and the long-term outcome. We have an increasing range of imaginative measures now being developed, born of increased co-operation and inter-agency working, with schools, the police, voluntary agencies, social services and the engaging of communities, as well as involving legal sanctions for the seriously criminal, which can produce real change.
	I am really interested in some of the new initiatives—the new youth inclusion support panels, for example—and wonder to what extent the Government are seriously resourcing and implementing the necessary infrastructure to be sure that they have an impact. We have probation boards, criminal justice boards and a welter of agencies with changing names that confuse outsiders such as myself.
	Having spent years as a magistrate, particularly as a children's panel member in Scotland, I know how crucial early interventions and decisions can be in determining the path of a vulnerable child's life. The involvement of community groups and diversion from criminal justice routes can be vital. The police and youth offending teams have their place in preventive and supportive work, but agencies with generic child welfare skills are key and must work alongside them. That would prevent the criminalising of children who had never committed an offence anyway. That is the heart of the matter.
	I look forward to hearing and understanding more from the Minister on what concrete financial and practical plans there are in that regard. Good intentions are not enough. Above all—I return to the theme that we have all discussed this evening—we must consult those young people, as it is with them that the solutions lie. As I said, we cannot enforce respect or mutual care and understanding; people must experience it for themselves. We must find ways to give young people that experience. Whatever the root causes of the difficulties, whether they are caused by boredom, having nowhere to go or by real difficulties—learning difficulties, social or emotional difficulties, addiction, abuse or domestic violence—the clause will do nothing to change them. Hence our resistance to it. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendment No. 169 overlaps with the amendments in the group. We are not part of the movement against the clause.
	I have no difficulty with the idea of moving the age for fixed penalties down to 16. There is, after all, a proposal that the voting age be lowered to 16 under examination at present. Someone who might be entitled to vote at 16 should be prepared to pay a fixed penalty and to do some of the other things that come later in the Bill. I shall return to that argument.
	The amendment is designed to deal with the problem of lowering the age further by order. I considered carefully the question of whether the Bill provided sufficient protection. The clause requires an order with the approval of both Houses of Parliament, and so it could be argued that that provides sufficient protection against rash action by a Minister. Then I considered the nature of the order procedure in this House, in parallel with the other place. We cannot propose amendments to orders or change them. We either approve them or, at a push, reject them, although, by custom and practice, it is rare for the House to do so.
	Because of that procedure, the matter ought to be the subject of primary legislation. I cannot envisage a situation in which a Minister would propose something as radical as this in the short-term future, and it would be remarkable if it were not possible to introduce another Bill that covered the issue at some point in two, three, five, eight or 10 years' time. For that reason, I thought that it would be prudent to excise the relevant part of the clause. That is the reason for the amendment, and I hope that the Government will consider it valid.

The Earl of Listowel: I shall speak to Amendment No. 168. I am particularly concerned at the impact of fixed penalty notices on looked-after children. Briefly, before addressing that issue, I should like to turn back to tools, to which the Minister has referred throughout the proceedings. I recognise the feeling in many communities that something needs to be done, but it seems that nothing can be done. There need to be new tools to do that.
	One must also remember the concern often raised about the rise in the number of prison inmates since 1992. While there has been a decline in crime since 1992, there has been a steady increase in the number of prison inmates and a sharp increase in the number of children in custody. Part of that is put down to the well-intentioned introduction of new tools, which, in some cases, have appeared to act as a means of widening the net to embrace children and adults who would not otherwise have been involved with the criminal justice system.
	Secondly, I turn to the possible impact of fixed penalty notices on families. I remember visiting a hostel run by Centre Point. I saw two 16 or 17 year-old girls, who, as I understood it, had been pushed out of their family by their step-father. One must consider the impact of fixed penalty notices on families who may not be too happy to have their children in the family anymore. It does not just apply to this clause, but to other clauses in which the fixed penalty notice is mentioned.
	In North London, there is a mediation service for homeless children alone in London. It has a special residence where it provides mediation services for these children. Often, it finds that parents do not want their children back—possibly understandably on the part of the parents—once the mediation service has been introduced. That issue needs to be looked at carefully in terms of the impact of fixed penalty notices. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, spoke of election. If we are considering lowering the age of electoral responsibility to 16 years-old, we should be thinking of giving more responsibility to 16 and 17 year-olds.
	This is a difficult issue. The ultimate right for children is that they should be treated like children. We have a duty to protect them, as they are immature in some ways. I know that that flies in the face of much of what is said. It is a difficult balance, especially in changing times with changing responsibilities. However, we must hold on to the idea that children are immature and lack experience in many ways. What they say is not necessarily a panacea for world ills or for the truth. It may be useful to discuss their experiences with them because they are experts in their own experience. They know about their schools and their local environment, but they have limits on their experience and their maturity limits their judgment.
	I am concerned about the impact on looked-after children, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. Her Majesty's Government have already set a target to reduce the level of involvement of looked-after children with the criminal justice system. There is a danger that fixed penalty notices might work against that target, although I acknowledge that the early intervention that fixed penalty notices allow might be beneficial for some of these children. However, there are practical considerations which makes one think that fixed penalty notices might work to the detriment of looked-after children.
	First, a looked-after child is perhaps most likely to put the fixed penalty notice in the bin once it has been given to him or her. He would then be liable perhaps to prosecution. If we were to exempt looked-after children from prosecution because of their special backgrounds, their sense that they were being treated differently from other children would be unhelpful. Yet, a successful prosecution or the involvement of the criminal justice system is also an undesirable outcome.
	Secondly, a looked-after child may have difficulty in paying a £40 or an £80 fine, which I think is the kind of figure being discussed. Let us say that the child receives £8.50 per week pocket money. The local authority can take only two-thirds of that in penalty. It might take two months for a boy to save the £80 to pay his fine. By that time, will he have already defaulted? Will the local authority be expected to pay the fine up-front and for the boy then to repay the local authority, and will local authorities agree to this? Might such a financial punishment push the child towards crime or prostitution to pay the debt?
	Those are some of the questions which must be resolved. I look forward to the Minister's reply. Perhaps a meeting with the Minister or her relevant officials between now and the Report stage to discuss the clause and how it will impact on looked-after children would be mutually beneficial.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say straightaway that I would be happy to make such an arrangement with the noble Earl, either with myself or with officials if my diary does not permit. I hope that I can take up immediately some of the points made by the noble Earl because he will know that parental liability would apply to a parent or guardian. Looked-after children fall into the category in which the local authority discharges that function while the child is in its care. We would expect the local authority officer to use this opportunity to discuss the child's behaviour with them.
	I turn to a further point made by the noble Earl which was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. The expectation is that the child will usually be taken to the police station and an appropriate adult found. We believe that the police officer will be able to make a judgment regarding the ability of the child to understand the penalty notice when they stop that child in the street. In fact, it should have no impact on the anti-social behaviour order by a penalty notice.
	Given that we have now merged the Question whether the clause should stand part, perhaps I should cover a few points. I take it that the comments I make on this amendment will directly impact on the comments that I shall not make in relation to the Question whether the clause should stand part.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, resists the extension of the penalty notice for disorder to 16 and 17 year-olds. We believe that penalty notices for disorder have an important role to play in tackling anti-social behaviour among 16 and 17 year-olds. As the noble Baroness pointed out, currently they apply only to those aged 18 and over. Pilots of the adult scheme have shown that most of the disorder offences involve alcohol-related anti-social behaviour in town centres on a Friday or Saturday night, behaviour which is often associated with 16 and 17 year-olds. An extension of the scheme would allow the police to impose an immediate sanction on anti-social behaviour which will act as a deterrent, but will not leave the young person with a conviction. That is an issue which we think is quite important.
	The noble Earl was right to refer to the sharp end; that is, those children who are seriously dysfunctional because of the way their history has fashioned them. We know also that other young children, with the exuberance of youth—perhaps they do not have the excuse of social deprivation—also indulge in loutish, violent, inappropriate and drunken behaviour. By the grace of God many of them grow out of it in due course. So fixed penalty notices for such young people, which can provide a short, sharp shock to bring them up on what they are doing, can be capable of being very effective.
	We shall pilot the scheme first to see whether it could be usefully applied nation-wide. Further, it will encourage the police to take action in a beneficial way against anti-social behaviour in the streets which is not being dealt with at present.
	I turn to Amendment No. 169, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, which would prevent the extension of fixed penalty notices for disorder to under 16 year-olds and would remove the power to impose parental liability for the payment. As I have just said, we believe that penalty notices for disorder could have an important role to play. Sadly—it is an extremely sad situation—children as young as 12 years old are engaged in disruptive behaviour that can be dealt with under the scheme, such as throwing stones at trains or being drunk on a public highway. It is a matter of real concern to us that younger and younger children seem to be abusing alcohol. The Association of Chief Police Officers has urged the Government to extend the scheme to juveniles. As I said, we intend to pilot the first scheme on 16 and 17 year-olds. We would seek the approval of Parliament by the affirmative resolution procedure should we wish to lower the age limit further.
	I hear what the noble Lord says in relation to affirmative resolutions not generally being voted down. However, it is possible for that to be done. If either House were to feel strongly enough about the issue, it would be a way of expunging the order from the books—not least because in Committee in the other place there was a great deal of passion for immediately reducing the level to below the age of 16 because of the difficulties that have been experienced.
	So that is a vehicle that we could use which, somewhat unusually, would be very effective in regard to this issue because the age limit could be lowered or not lowered. In other affirmative resolution procedures there are often attachments which make it more difficult. Not that I am suggesting for one moment that noble Lords should do that because, if the day comes, I may well be arguing with great vigour that it is something that we should do.
	We believe that it is right for parents to take responsibility for their children's behaviour and that they should be expected to pay the penalty on their children's behalf. It is quite wrong that parents are allowing young children to misbehave on the streets, often late at night, and not doing anything about it.
	Amendment No. 171 would ensure that where a juvenile is offered a penalty notice the child must be accompanied by an adult and have the right to legal advice. Experience of the adult pilots shows that most penalty notices for disorder are issued in the police station, as I have described.
	However, to impose conditions more broadly would effectively restrict the police so that they would not be able to issue penalty notices for disorder on the street. This would deprive them of the ability to give an immediate and low-key penalty to a juvenile. It would also defeat one of the aims of the penalty notice scheme to deal quickly and effectively with anti-social behaviour on the streets.
	The provision in subsection (11) of Amendment No. 171 is unnecessary as penalty notices can be appealed, and this appeal is taken through the courts. So there are safeguards there. Adequate protection is thereby already afforded to anyone who is issued with a penalty notice for disorder, including juveniles. So if the juvenile did not consent to the issue of a penalty notice, this could be raised properly through the courts.
	As regards the clause stand part discussion, it is right that we should remember that we have piloted the other scheme in the four police areas across the country. As the noble Baroness said, the scheme targets low-level anti-social offending. Penalty notices can be issued to adults for 11 disorder offences, including being drunk and disorderly, Section 5 public order offences and throwing fireworks.
	There was a lot of concern as to whether these fixed penalty notices would work. We have found—and we hope to be able to publish relatively soon the results of the first review—that they have been very successful and have targeted the kind of problems we want them to. Indeed, many of those who were sceptical about the scheme have been won over and now see it as a very effective method of going forward. We hope that it will be similarly effective with juveniles, particularly those aged 16.
	I would gently remind the Committee that people are able to get married at 16—they have been able to do so for many years—with their parents' support. Some of the young people in this group are not only married but parents themselves. So we are not dealing with children of a quite tender age. Of course we believe—with a passion equal to that of the noble Baroness and the noble Earl—that they are still children and that they still need protection and observation. But we also still have to challenge them a little in relation to some of these issues, and the research that we have carried out so far suggests that this might be an appropriate way of doing so.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I thank the noble Baroness for that very full and interesting reply. I thank, too, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his very useful contribution and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
	Voting and fixed penalty notices is like the comparison between apples and pears—I shall leave it at that for the time being. I am very interested to hear that the pilots have produced some results. They were not available to us, but we look forward to reading them because they obviously have a bearing on the pilots' further development and use. We look forward to following that up.
	Despite the Minister's arguments, I remain entirely unconvinced about the lower age group going down from under 16 to as low as 10. The fact is that very young people become parents; 16-year-olds seem like very young children to me, but even if they are married, that has nothing whatever to do with their maturity, their need for protection and their dependency. If they are married and parents, the greater their needs and dependencies. It does not work the other way around. Our position is to continue to resist that provision strongly, if at all possible.
	Given the lateness of the hour, I would just remind the noble Baroness that I am very interested in what concrete plans are in place to complement the kind of procedures that we have been discussing to enable young people and children to be kept out of the criminal justice system. I mentioned the YISPs in particular, but there may be others. I do not know whether the Minister wants to respond now or later.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I beg the noble Baroness's pardon. In fact, I have a big long list of the things that we have done, including Sure Start, children's fund and education. I cannot run through them all now, but I will write to the noble Baroness and give her as full a response as I am able. I apologise for not having done it in my rather rapid, short-fire response tonight.

The Earl of Listowel: Perhaps I might take this opportunity to raise one further point with the Minister. It was raised by the noble Baroness, but I am not sure that the Minister replied to it in her response. I refer to 16 and 17-year-olds not being in employment, education or training. They are poorer than their 19 or 20-year-old neighbours. I believe that we are unusual in that 16 and 17-year-olds receive less benefit than their European counterparts. I think that the Government do this because they are keen to see these young people in education, training or employment and do not wish to provide them with incentives to be outside employment. That is controversial, but there are two sides to the argument. It suggests that the fines for 16 and 17-year-olds should be lower to reflect their financial climate and gives further weight to the concern about how these young people will pay the fines.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Rather than dealing with that tonight, because we have draft regulations, perhaps I may also write to the noble Earl about those issues?

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 169 to 171 not moved.]
	Clause 39 agreed to.
	Clause 40 agreed to.
	Clause 41 [Extension of powers of community support officers etc.]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 172:
	Page 33, line 23, at end insert ", skateboard user, user of roller skates or in-line skates"

Lord Dixon-Smith: This group of amendments seeks to modernise the Bill a little. The Bill gives powers for people to charge fixed penalties for those who inconsiderately ride their bicycles on pavements where pedestrians have right of way. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but pavements are not the only places where bicycles are ridden without consideration. They can be ridden in parks and other places, in open spaces, in building courtyards and so on. Two of the amendments would simply remove the restriction that makes the penalty possible on footways alone.
	The other two amendments are directed to widening the scope to deal with a modern phenomenon—that of skateboards and in-line roller skates—or roller blades—and roller skates themselves. These are all, on occasions, used somewhat to the danger of pedestrians using footways properly, but also in parks and so on. We believe that it would be reasonable to invite the Government to consider whether the fixed penalty should be extended to those particular uses if they are inconsiderately used in areas where the public are expecting to be able to walk in peace and safety. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Chief Whip is muttering that I ought to be very sympathetic to the amendments, and in spirit I certainly am. There are questions of practicality, however, and I shall deal with the amendments in turn.
	Subsections (3) and (6) of Clause 41 give community support officers and accredited persons the power to stop cyclists so that they may issue a fixed penalty notice. That power is restricted to occasions when an offence of cycling on the footway is suspected. Amendments Nos. 173 and 176 would remove this restriction. The amendments would give community support officers and accredited persons the much wider power, which is currently available to police officers. Police have that wider power in order to enforce a number of cycling offences. I am sure that we all wish that they would do that rather more frequently sometimes.
	Amendments Nos. 172 and 175 appear to be intended to create a new offence of skateboarding, roller skating or in-line skating on a footway. They are not in fact effective, if that is their purpose, as the amendments do not create the new offences. However, I shall deal with them as a matter of principle.
	The amendments would also provide community support officers, accredited persons, and police officers with a power to stop individuals engaged in these activities. I understand the concerns behind the amendments. There is no doubt that skateboarders, in-line skaters and roller skaters can cause irritation to pedestrians in particular localities. They have irritated me from time to time. However, the amendments would move the legal use of skateboards and roller skates from footways to roadways. These devices are not designed for use in traffic—that is for sure—and displacing them on to roads would undoubtedly be dangerous for both skaters and other road users. Having seen people do exactly that, I know that they are highly dangerous.
	In addition, there are already sufficient powers to make by-laws to deal with this kind of nuisance. Section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972 enables local authorities to enact by-laws in regard to use of skateboards, which can prohibit such activities in certain locations or regulate them throughout their district. There are already several local authorities that have made it an offence to skateboard or roller skate in designated areas, punishable by a fine on summary conviction.
	The debate takes me back to the debates on the Police Reform Bill in the previous Session, which were dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and myself. It is not our intention in general to expand the powers of community support officers, unless there are very strong arguments for doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches were very concerned about the range of powers and duties that would be available to community support officers. I think that at the time we were generally agreed that there had to be strong arguments for extending those powers. For those reasons, I question this particular approach. Nevertheless, as I said, I have not only personal sympathy but a more general sympathy for the proposal. I therefore suggest to the noble Lord that, at this stage, he should not press his amendments.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and indeed for his sympathy—but there is an old saying about an ounce of health being worth a tonne of sympathy. It is not the use that we are concerned about; we are concerned about the inconsiderate use. There is that distinction. I think that I shall probably need to consider whether we want to bring this forward again, perhaps with slightly amended wording. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: moved Amendment No. 174:
	Page 33, line 40, leave out subsections (5) to (7).

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: The purpose of this amendment is to restrict the power to issue fixed penalty notices and stop vehicles to police officers and community support officers only. There is concern about public transparency, accountability and professional capability and about the piecemeal extension of police powers to civilian bodies not under the direct supervision of the police. Despite the offences covered being minor, the principle of extending police powers to non-police civilians is a concern. As the PACE codes of practice outline, the key principles of using stop powers and the danger of misuse is highlighted. We see the creation of second and third-tier policing, with increasingly obscure boundaries of accountability and professionalism, as very disturbing. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As this amendment somewhat extends the previous debate, I shall just briefly go over the important points.
	The purposes of subsections (5), (6) and (7) of this clause are to extend, in a focused and appropriate way, the powers available to persons accredited under the Police Reform Act 2002. The amendment would remove all of those provisions. The powers made available to accredited persons are the power to stop cycles—so that, as I said, accredited persons may assist in enforcing the offence of cycling on the pavement—and the power to issue certain penalty notices for disorder.
	As with all the powers made available to accredited persons under the Police Reform Act 2002, there are a number of safeguards already in place to ensure that the powers are given only in appropriate circumstances. Chief officers will be responsible for ensuring that anybody given these powers is suitable and, more importantly, properly trained. As an additional safeguard, the clause allows the Secretary of State to determine which penalty notices for disorder should be exclusively for police and which are appropriate to be extended to community support officers and accredited persons.
	Communities want lower level incidents of disorder dealt with quickly and effectively. Penalty notices for disorder provide a useful method for dealing with such offences. Extending this power to properly trained accredited persons will provide people already involved in community safety roles with the powers they need to take more effective action. Given the value of these powers, the way in which they have begun to work and the safeguards against their misuse, I suggest to the noble Baroness that it would be inappropriate for her to press the amendment.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am not entirely sure that I am totally convinced, but I shall read it with interest in Hansard. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 175 and 176 not moved.]
	Clause 41 agreed to.
	Clause 42 [Report by local authority in certain cases where person remanded on bail]:
	[Amendments Nos. 177 and 178 not moved.]
	Clause 42 agreed to.
	Clause 43 [Possession of air weapon or imitation firearm in public place]:
	[Amendment No. 178A not moved.]
	Clause 43 agreed to.
	Clause 44 [Air weapons: age limits]:

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 179:
	Page 36, line 9, leave out paragraph (a).

Earl Attlee: This amendment concerns air weapons and age limits in that regard. At present someone can use an air weapon without supervision from the moment it is bought but he or she must be over 14. The Bill would raise that age to 17. Our amendments seek to retain the status quo of 14. Amendment No. 180 would ensure that private property would remain an exception under Section 23 of the Firearms Act 1968. I beg to move.

Lord Moynihan: Finally, I rise to speak to the amendment standing in my name regarding Clause 44. Clause 44 of the Bill contains a subsection which, if passed, will make it illegal for young responsible shooters between the ages of 14 and 17 to carry air guns in public places without supervision. This removes a paragraph from the Firearms Act 1968 which allows young people to do this provided the gun is held in a securely fastened case. The sporting shooting community is opposing the clause because as it stands it will result in the exclusion of young people from shooting sports. Although what I have heard of the Bill this evening contains an important social remit and its intention to prevent the misuse of air guns is thoroughly laudable, this particular issue is of extreme concern to the entire sporting shooting community. If the clause is passed unamended, it will pose a significant impediment to the participation of young people in a range of shooting sports from informal target practice to competition shooting. It will bear down disproportionately on any young responsible sportsman or woman who has permission to shoot on local farmland. This is particularly the case with air guns as they are the gun of choice for the majority of young people taking up the sport.
	The clause is also inherently self-contradictory. Following pressure from the sporting shooting community, the Government amended the Anti-social Behaviour Bill to allow young sporting shooters to use air guns on private land without supervision. If the Bill does not receive further amendment, young shooters will be allowed to use their guns on private land without supervision, but will be in the conflicting position of having to be supervised when carrying those same guns in public.
	Under current law young people considered responsible enough to shoot on private land unsupervised are also considered responsible enough to carry their air guns in public places, provided they are unloaded and in a securely fastened gun case. The British Shooting Sports Council would like to see that situation continue. Those involved in the sport of shooting from our Olympians to the Bisley champions of tomorrow and colleagues on these Benches share that view. The clause runs contrary to Labour's sports policy. Air guns are the gateway to responsible shooting sports for young people, from those for whom it is a weekend hobby to professional competitors such as 16 year-old Commonwealth Gold medallist, Charlotte Kerwood.
	Shooting sports often require significant physical exertion and provide a wide variety of health benefits for those who participate in them. By restricting young people's ability to practise these sports, the clause will also work against the DCMS target, as set out in Game Plan, to initiate,
	"a major increase in participation in sport and physical activity, primarily because of the significant health benefits and to reduce the growing costs of inactivity".
	The clause would limit the opportunities for shooting sports to uphold the Government's objectives and policy goals, and, through sports participation, achieve a wide array of policy goals relating to health and obesity reduction, education, crime reduction and social inclusion.
	The clause contradicts Labour's manifesto commitment not to place further restrictions on the sport of shooting. The clause undermines the Government's policy on grassroots sports participation as it creates a disincentive to young people who are thinking of taking up the sport.
	I am not the first to raise this issue in Parliament. The concern was raised at the Bill's Second Reading that an amendment to Clause 44 to deal with this issue could water down the Bill's provisions to combat the misuse of air weapons. In order to reassure the Committee that this is not the case I seek to outline briefly our response to three concerns. The first is the misuse of air guns. I quote the Minister in another place:
	"Carrying air guns in a securely fastened case would not prevent them being misused out of sight of a police officer on the way to the place of use".
	I would argue that a provision in Clause 43 would require everyone carrying a gun in public to provide good cause for their journey to law enforcement authorities. Under the terms of the amended clause, whether the gun is or is not in a securely fastened case, and whether a policeman or member of the public has witnessed any actual abuse or not, the police will be able to challenge anyone carrying any firearm, loaded or unloaded, covered or uncovered, and take immediate on-the-spot action to deal with that. Clause 43 creates an arrestable offence.
	In cases where airguns have been misused in public places, there is no evidence—not a single case—to show that the people who perpetrate the crime use the current exemption as a loophole to avoid prosecution. Finally, as responsible members of the community, sporting shooters of all ages always carry their guns in a securely fastened case, and are therefore easily distinguishable from those who misuse airguns.
	The second concern is the supervision of young people in sports. Again I quote the Minister in another place, who said:
	"There is no 'strong reason' why young shooters should not be supervised. It is no different to the support given to young people by parents and coaches in relation to many other sports".
	That response does not take into account the practicalities of shooting sports; moreover, it indicates that the Government's approach bears down disproportionately on young sportsmen and women from socially excluded backgrounds.
	Shooting sports are often practised in rural areas where it is possible and preferable for young people to walk or cycle on their own to land where they have permission to shoot—for example, local woodland—often on an informal, solitary basis. Shooting sports are also often undertaken at unsociable hours. For example, a young person might be meeting a group of adults to go shooting at dawn. Not all training is carried out through organised sporting shooting events.
	Moreover, it is not a legal requirement for adults to accompany young people to practice sessions in other sporting disciplines. As with other sports, therefore, it should be left to parents to judge when it is appropriate to allow young people to travel unsupervised to the location where they practise their sport. As a matter of principle, we believe that young sporting shooters should not be subjected to such a disadvantage, nor their activities unnecessarily restricted.
	The third concern is about levels of police bureaucracy. It has been suggested that such an amendment would create further bureaucracy for law enforcement authorities. The highly respected British Shooting Sports Council would assert that, with correct and unambiguous guidance on the issue, the police would face no further bureaucracy than is suggested by the clause as it stands.
	I believe that those arguments constitute a strong case, and I hope that Members of the Committee will agree with them.

Lord Addington: The case that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has made is one in which a type of sport that we are encouraging is worried about its recruitment base. On certain occasions, I have incurred the wrath of the group of people under discussion by supporting the Government and previous governments on restrictions on firearms. They feel rather persecuted, but both this Government and the previous government said that people could be part of the airgun fraternity. Airguns are safer, with the man-killing potential of the weapons dramatically lower than the ones that they replaced.
	Surely addressing some of the issues raised overall by the noble Lord's amendment would not hurt the Government terribly and not up the risk. Do the Government have any coherent thinking on the issue? Will they address the problem of how to get people involved in the sport at a young age? If people are to reach a highly competitive level, they have to start early. We are very wary of the idea of firearms of any description. However, unless we are to say that they cannot be used at all, people have to have a way in. What is the Government's thinking on the issue?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank Members of the Committee for raising the issue. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, introduced it very succinctly, but it could not have been more elegantly or compellingly put on behalf of the fraternity than it was by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. However, I have to say that notwithstanding his elegance, there are some fundamental flaws in the argument.
	There is no conflict in the Government's stance. As the noble Lord rightly said, the Government are four square behind the sportsmen and women of this country and have done much to support them and to enable them to participate and achieve at the highest level. I speak to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the Government have listened keenly to what the sporting lobby has said. For that reason, there is a change in the proposals now put forward by the Government. They enable shooting to take place on private land. But there is no conflict, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, sought to indicate, between the stance we have taken in relation to what happens in the private and public arenas. The two are quite separate and distinct.
	Amendments Nos. 179, 181 and 182 go to the heart of Clause 44. They would retain the existing age limit of 14 for the possession of an air weapon. The Government believe that that it is important to raise the age limit to 17. Regrettably, there has been a steady rise in the instance of misuse of air weapons in recent years. In 2001-02, there were 12,340 offences involving the misuse of air weapons. That is a rise of 21 per cent. The new offence contained in Clause 43 will help to tackle this misuse by allowing the police to arrest people who are found to be carrying an air gun in public without good reason. But that is not the whole solution. Much anti-social behaviour relating to air weapons is caused by unsupervised young people—

Lord Dixon-Smith: I hear the statistics with interest. Is it possible to divide the category "air weapons" between air weapons/handguns and air weapons/air rifles? I suspect that the problem is with handguns rather than air rifles, although I admit that there are some cases involving air rifles.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: One of the important issues, as the noble Lord will know, is that regrettably those who misuse firearms tend to transfer from one source to another if one source is cut off. The noble Lord will know that it is relatively easy to adapt a shotgun with a shortened barrel to have exactly the same effect. The mechanism is identical, so it can be adapted to be as lethal as a handgun.
	The noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised another issue. We had thought that air guns were a little safer than others. Regrettably, we are learning that they are an increasing problem with which we must now deal.

Viscount Goschen: The Minister gave statistics about the increasing number of offences concerning air weapons. However, the argument is about young people and air guns. Can she separate the statistics that she provided to indicate those above 17 and those below 17?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not know whether the statistics are in that form. I shall inquire and if they are, I shall write to the noble Viscount and place a copy of my letter in the Library. We shall then be able to say whether there is a difference between the two.
	Much anti-social behaviour involving air weapons is caused by unsupervised young people. As a further tool to tackle this problem, we believe that it is right to raise the age limit for owning or possessing air weapons. At present, anyone aged 14 or over can own an air weapon. Clause 44 will increase this age limit to 17.
	For the purposes of completeness, I am informed that the statistics do not split the figure of 12,340 into handguns and rifles or by age. They are collected in terms of species of offence and are not broken down.
	One effect of raising the age limit is that no one under 17 will be able to have an air gun in his possession unless supervised by someone aged 21 or over. We have listened to concerns from shooting organisations about how this would create difficulties for responsible young shooters who use their air weapons unsupervised for target shooting and for pest control on farms. The Government responded on Report in the other place by amending the clause to allow young people aged 14 to 16 to have air weapons unsupervised, provided they are on private premises and have the consent of the occupier.
	As an extra safeguard, particularly with urban areas in mind, we have introduced an offence, punishable with a fine of up to £1,000, of firing a pellet beyond the premises. Amendment No. 180 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggests an alternative form of this exception. However, it does not contain the safeguards of a minimum age and the offence of shooting beyond the boundary.
	Amendment No. 179A in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Dixon-Smith, would provide a further relaxation of the requirement for supervision. It would allow 14 to 16 year-olds to carry their air weapons unsupervised, provided they were secured in a gun cover and provided the young person was travelling directly to or from his club or another place where he could lawfully use the gun.
	I fully understand why Amendment No. 179A has been tabled. I know that shooting organisations are concerned that requiring all young people under 17 to be supervised when travelling with their guns would be impractical and would unduly hinder legitimate shooters. The Government have considered very carefully their concerns, but we are not persuaded that we should make this further exception. The greatest risk of air weapons being misused is likely to occur when they are being carried in public by young people. A gun cover would not prevent the weapon being taken out and misused. We feel strongly that the public must be protected against such misuse, and we remain of the view that adult supervision is necessary in those circumstances.
	I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said about the activities of children. But many of those children are properly transported by and with their parents and/or other adults. We believe that Clause 44 provides a balanced control against the misuse of air weapons. It ensures that young people generally do not have unsupervised access to air weapons, while allowing a specific exception for responsible shooters. We believe that the balance is about right and that this would be the appropriate point to come to a proper rest.

Lord Moynihan: Sadly, I fundamentally disagree with the Government on this issue. However, this is not the hour to cover all the points and respond to them in depth, save to say that there has never been a single incident of an offence involving a member of a registered sports shooting club. In the light of that, and with the Minister's agreement, I ask her whether I may discuss the subject in detail with her officials with the intention of seeking common ground in advance of Report stage to see whether we can make progress on this issue.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am more than happy to indicate that we would welcome such a dialogue. I am sure that arrangements can be made for the noble Lord to have that opportunity.

Lord Dixon-Smith: This has been a very good debate. I am bound to say that the response of the Minister is disappointing. But we shall consider whether we can draft these amendments in a different form which might satisfy some of the concerns that she exposed. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 179A to 182A not moved.]
	Clause 44 agreed to.
	Clause 45 [Prohibition of certain air weapons]:
	[Amendment No. 182B not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at five minutes before midnight.